





3* 












KNOW THE TRUTH; 

A CRITIQUE ON THE HAMILTONIAN THEORY 
OF LIMITATION, 

INCLUDING 



SOME STRICTURES UPON THE THEORIES OF 

REV. HENRY L. MANSEL AND MR. 

HERBERT SPENCER. 



BY 

JESSE Hj^J 



{i Give me to see, that I may know where to strike." 



NEW YORK: 

PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR BY HURD AND HOUGHTON. 

BOSTON : NICHOLS AND NOTES 

1865. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865, by 

Jesse H. Jones, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. 



RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE ! 

STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY 

B. 0. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY. 



Dedication. 



TO MY FELLOW-STUDENTS AND FRIENDS OF ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL 

SEMINARY WHO HAVE READ MANSEL AND REJECTED 

HIS TEACHINGS, 

Situs Hfttle £Treattse 

IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY 

THE AUTHOR. 



PREFACE. 



This book has been written simply in the interest of 
Truth. It was because the doctrines of the Hamiltonian 
School were believed to be dangerous errors, which this pro- 
cess of thought exposes, that it was undertaken. 

Logically, and in the final analysis, there can be but two 
systems of philosophical theology in the world. The one 
will be Pantheism, or Atheism, — both of which contain 
the same essential principle, but viewed from different stand- 
points, — the other will be a pure Theism. In the schools 
of Brahma and Buddh, or in the schools of Christ, the truth 
is to be found. And this is so because every teacher is to be 
held responsible for all which can be logically deduced from 
his system ; and every erroneous result which can be so 
deduced is decisive of the presence of an error in principle 
in the foundation ; and all schemes of philosophy, by such a 
trial, are seen to be based on one of these two classes of 
schools. Just here a quotation from Dr. Laurens Hickok's 
" Rational Psychology " will be in point : 

" Except as we determine the absolute to be personality 
wholly out of and beyond all the conditions and modes of 
space and time, we can by no possibility leave nature for the 
supernatural. The clear-sighted and honest intellect, rest- 
ing in this conclusion that the conditions of space and time 



VI PREFACE. 

cannot be transcended, will be Atheistic ; while the deluded 
intellect, which has put the false play of the discursive under- 
standing in its abstract speculations for the decisions of an 
all-embracing reason, and deems itself so fortunate as to have 
found a deity within the modes of space and time, will be 
Pantheistic. The Pantheism will be ideal and transcendent, 
when it reaches its conclusions by a logical process in the 
abstract law of thought ; and it will be material and empiric, 
when it concludes from the fixed connections of cause and 
effect in the generalized law of nature ; but in neither case 
is the Pantheism any other than Atheism, for the Deity, 
circumscribed in the conditions of space and time with nature, 
is but nature still, and, whether in abstract thought or gen- 
eralized reality, is no God." 

The Hamiltonian system is logically Atheism. Perceiving 
that the Deity cannot be found in Nature, it denies that he 
can be known at all. What the mind cannot know at all, 
it is irrational to believe. If man cannot know that God is, 
and have a clear sight of his attributes as a rational ground 
of confidence in what he says, it is the height of blind credulity 
to believe in him. And more; if man cannot have such 
knowledge, he has na standard by which to measure teach- 
ings, and be sure he has the truth. Under such circum- 
stances, faith is impossible. Faith can only be based on 
Reason. If there is no Reason, there can be no faith. 
Hence he who talks about faith, and denies Reason, does not 
know what faith is. The logician rightfully held' that God 
could not be found in Nature ; but he was. just as wrong in 
asserting that man is wholly in Nature and cannot know God, 
as he was right in the former instance. The acceptance of 
his one truth, and one error, compels man to be an Atheist; 
because then he has no faculty by which to know aught of 



PREFACE. Vll 

God ; and few thorough men will accept blind credulity as 
the basis of Religion. 

The author's sense of obligation to President Hickok cannot 
be too strongly stated. But for his works, it is believed that 
this little treatise could never have been written. Indeed, 
the author looks for but scanty credit on the score of origi- 
nality, since most of what he has written he has learned, 
directly or indirectly, from that profound thinker. He has 
deemed it his chief work, to apply the principles developed 
by others to the exposure of a great error. And if he shall 
be judged to have accomplished this, his ambition will have 
been satisfied. 

After the substance of this treatise had been thought out, 
and while the author was committing it to paper, the essays on 
" Space and Time," and on " The Philosophy of the Uncon- 
ditioned," in the numbers of the " North American Review " 
for July and October, 1864, happened to fall under his notice. 
Some persons will appreciate the delight and avidity with 
which he read them ; and how grateful it was to an obscure 
student, almost wholly isolated in the world, to find the views 
which he had wrought out in his secluded chamber, so ably 
advocated in the leading review of his country. Not that he 
had gone as far, or examined the subjects in hand as thor- 
oughly as has been there done. By no means. Rather what 
results he had attained accord with some of those therein 
laid down. Of those essays it is not too much to say, that, if 
they have not exhausted the topics of which they treat, they 
have settled forever the conclusions to be reached, and leave 
for other writers only illustration and comment. If the author 
shall seem to differ from them on a minor question, — that of 
quantitative infinity, — the difference will, it is believed, be 
found to be one of the form of expression only. And the differ- 



Vlll PBEFACE. 

ence is maintained from the conviction that no term in science 
should have more than one signification. It is better to adopt 
illimitable and indivisible, as the technical epithets of Space, 
in place of the commonly used terms infinite and absolute. 

A metaphysical distinction has been incidentally touched 
upon in the following discussion, which ' deserves a more 
extensive consideration than the scope and plan of this work 
would permit to it here ; and which, so far as the author's 
limited reading goes, has received very little attention from 
modern writers on metaphysics. He refers to the distinction 
between the animal nature and spiritual person, so repeatedly 
enounced by that profound metaphysical theologian, the 
apostle Paul, and by that pure spiritual pastor, the apostle 
John, in the terms " flesh " and " spirit." The thinkers of 
the world, even the best Christian philosophers, seem to have 
esteemed this a moral and religious distinction, and no more, 
when in fact it cleaves down through the whole human being, 
and forms the first great radical division in any proper analy- 
sis of man's soul, and classification of his constituent elements. 
This is a purely natural division. It is organic in man. It 
belonged as much to Adam in his purity, as it does to the 
most degraded wretch on the globe now. It is of such a 
character that, had it been properly understood and developed, 
the Hamiltonian system of philosophy could never have been 
constructed. 

An adequate statement of the truth would be conducted as 
follows. First, the animal nature should be carefully analyzed, 
its province accurately defined, and both the laws and forms 
of its activity exactly stated. Second, a like examination of 
the spiritual person should follow ; and third, the relations, 
interactions, and influences of the two parts upon each other 
should be, as extensively as possible, presented. But it is to 



PREFACE. IX 

be remarked, that, while the analysis, by the human intellect, 
of these two great departments of man's soul, may be ex- 
haustive, it is doubtful if any but the All-seeing Eye can 
read all their relations and inter-communications. The devel- 
opment of the third point, by any one mind, must needs, 
therefore, be partial. Whether any portion of the above 
designated labor shall be hereafter entered upon, will depend 
upon circumstances beyond the control of the writer. 

As will appear, it is believed, in the development of the 
subject, the great, the vital point upon which the whole con- 
troversy with the Hamiltonian school must turn, is a question 
of fact ; viz., whether man has a Eeason, as the faculty 
giving a priori principles, or not. If he has such a Reason, 
then by it the questions now at issue can be settled, and that 
finally. If he has no Reason, then he can have no knowledge, 
except of appearances and events, as perceived by the Sense 
and judged by the Understanding. Until, then, the question 
of fact is decided, it would be a gain if public attention was 
confined wholly to it. Establish first a well-ascertained and 
sure foundation before erecting a superstructure. 

The method adopted in constructing this treatise does not 
admit the presentation of the matter in a symmetrical form. 
On the contrary, it involves some, perhaps many, repetitions. 
What has been said at one point respecting one author must 
be said again in reply to another. Yet the main object for 
which the work was undertaken could, it seemed, be thor- 
oughly accomplished in no other way. 

The author has in each case used American editions of the 
works named. 



KNOW THE TBUTH. 



PART I. 

THE SEEKING AND THE FINDING. 

In April, 1859, there was republished in Boston, from an 
English print, a volume entitled " The Limits of Religious 
Thought Examined," &c, " by Henry Longueville Mansel, 
B. D." 

The high position occupied by the publishers, — a firm of 
Christian gentlemen, who, through a long career in the pub- 
lication of books either devoutly religious, or, at least, hav- 
ing a high moral tone, and being marked by deep, earnest 
thought, have obtained the confidence of the religious com- 
munity ; the recommendations with which its advent was her- 
alded, but most of all the intrinsic importance of the theme 
announced, and its consonance with many of the currents of 
mental activity in our midst, — gave the book an immediate 
and extensive circulation. Its subject lay at the foundation 
of all religious, and especially of all theological thinking. 
The author, basing his teaching on certain metaphysical 
tenets, claimed to have circumscribed the boundary to all 
positive, and so valid effort of the human intellect in its up- 
ward surging towards the Deity, and to have been able to 
say, "Thus far canst thou come, and no farther, and here 
must thy proud waves be stayed." And this effort was de- 
claredly made in the interest of religion. It was asserted 



2 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

that from such a ground only, as was therein sought to be 
established, could infidelity be successfully assailed and de- 
stroyed. Moreover, the writer was a learned and able divine 
in the Anglican Church, orthodox in his views ; and his vol- 
ume was composed of lectures delivered upon what is known 
as " The Bampton Foundation ; " — a bequest of a clergy- 
man, the income of which, under certain rules, he directed 
should be employed forever, in furthering the cause of Christ, 
by Divinity Lecture Sermons in Oxford. Such a book, on 
such a theme, by such a man, and composed under such aus- 
pices, would necessarily receive the almost universal atten- 
tion of religious thinkers, and would mark an era in human 
thought. Such was the fact in this country. New England, 
the birthplace and home of American Theology, gave it her 
most careful and studious examination. And the West alike 
with the East pored over its pages, and wrought upon its 
knotty questions. Clergymen especially, and theological stu- 
dents, perused it with the earnestness of those who search 
for hid treasures. And what was the result ? We do not 
hesitate to say that it was unqualified rejection. The book 
now takes its place among religious productions, not as a 
contribution to our positive knowledge, not as a practicable 
new road, surveyed out through the Unknown Regions of 
Thought, but rather as possessing only a negative value, as a 
monument of warning, erected at that point on the roadside 
where the writer branched off in his explorations, and on 
which is inscribed, "In this direction the truth cannot be 
found." 

The stir which this book produced, naturally brought prom- 
inently to public attention a writer heretofore not exten- 
sively read in this country, Sir William Hamilton, upon 
whose metaphysical teachings the lecturer avowedly based 
his whole scheme. The doctrines of the metaphysician were 
subjected to the same scrutinizing analysis, which dissolved 
the enunciations of the divine ; and they, like these, were 
pronounced "wanting." This decision was not reached or 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 3 

expressed in any extensive and exhaustive criticism of these 
writers ; in which the errors of their principles and the re- 
volting nature of the results they attained, were presented ; 
but it rather was a shoot from the spontaneous and deep- 
seated conviction, that the whole scheme, of both teacher and 
pupil, was utterly insufficient to satisfy the craving of man's 
highest nature. It was rejected because it could not be re- 
ceived. 

Something more than a year ago, and while the American 
theological mind, resting in the above-stated conviction, was 
absorbed in the tremendous interests connected with the Great 
Rebellion, a new aspirant for honors appeared upon the stage. 
A book was published entitled " The Philosophy of Herbert 
Spencer : First Principles." This was announced as the foun- 
dation of a new system of Philosophy, which would command 
the confidence of the present, and extort the wonder of all 
succeeding ages. Avowing the same general principles with 
Mansel and Hamilton, this writer professed to have found a 
radical defect in their system, which being corrected, rendered 
that system complete and final ; so that, from it as a base, he 
sets out to construct a new scheme of Universal Science. This 
man, too, has been read, not so extensively as his predeces- 
sors ; because when one has seen a geometrical absurdity dem- 
onstrated, he does not care, unless from professional motives, 
to examine and disprove further attempts to bolster up the 
folly; but still so widely read, as to be generally associated 
with the other writers above mentioned, and, like them, re- 
jected. Upon being examined, he is found to be a man of 
less scope and mental muscle than either of his teachers; 
yet going over the same ground and expressing the same 
ideas, scarcely in new language even ; and it further ap- 
pears that his discovery is made at the expense of his logic 
and consistency, and involves an unpardonable contradic- 
tion. Previous to the publication of the books just men- 
tioned, an American writer had submitted to the world a sys- 
tem of thought upon the questions of which they treat, which 



4 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

certainly seems worthy of some notice from their authors. 
Yet it has received none. To introduce him we must retrace 
our steps for a little. 

In 1848, Laurens P. Hickok, then a Professor in Auburn 
Theological Seminary, published a work entitled " Rational 
Psychology," in which he professed to establish, by a priori 
processes, positions which, if true, afford a ground for the 
answer, at once and forever, of all the difficulties raised by 
Sir William Hamilton and his school. Being comparatively 
a new writer, his work attracted only a moiety of the atten- 
tion it should have done. It was too much like Analytical 
Geometry and Calculus for the popular mind, or even for 
any but a few patient thinkers. For them it was marrow 
and fatness. 

Since the followers of Sir William Hamilton, whom we 
will hereafter term Limitists, have neglected to take the 
great truths enunciated by the American metaphysician, and 
apply them to their own system, and so be convinced by their 
own study of the worthlessness of that system, it becomes 
their opponents, in the interest of truth, to perform this work 
in their stead ; viz., upon the basis of immutable truth, to 
unravel each of their well-knit sophistries, to show to the 
world that it may "know the truth;" and thus to destroy 
a system which, if allowed undisputed sway, would sap the 
very foundations of Christian faith. 

The philosophical system of the Limitists is built upon a 
single fundamental proposition, which carries all their deduc- 
tions with it. He who would strike these effectually, must 
aim his blow, and give it with all his might, straight at that 
one object ; sure that if he destroys that, the destruction of 
the whole fabric is involved therein. But, as the Limitists 
are determined not to confess the dissolution of their scheme, 
by the simple establishment of principles, which they can- 
not prove false, and which, if true, involve the absurdity of 
their own tenets, it is further necessary to go through their 
writings, and examine them passage by passage, and show 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 5 

the fallacy of each. In the former direction we can but re- 
utter some of the principles of the great American teacher. 
In the latter there is room for new effort ; and this shall be 
our especial province. 

The proposition upon which the whole scheme of the Lim- 
itists is founded, was originally enunciated by Sir William 
Hamilton, in the following terms. " The Unconditioned is 
incognizable and inconceivable ; its notion being only nega- 
tive of the conditioned, which last can alone be positively 
known or conceived." " In our opinion, the mind can con- 
ceive, and consequently can know, only the limited and the 
i conditionally limited. The unconditionally unlimited, or the 
Infinite, the unconditionally limited, or the Absolute, cannot 
positively be construed to the mind ; they can be conceived 
only by a thinking away from, or abstraction of, those very 
conditions under w T hich thought itself is realized ; conse- 
quently, the notion of the Unconditioned is only negative — 
negative of the conceivable itself. For example, on the one 
hand we can positively conceive, neither an absolute whole, 
that is, a whole so great, that we cannot also conceive it as a 
relative part of a still greater whole ; nor an absolute part, 
that is, a part so small, that we cannot also conceive it as a 
relative whole, divisible into smaller parts. On the other 
hand, we cannot positively represent, or realize, or construe 
to the mind, (as here understanding and imagination coin- 
cide,) an infinite whole, for this could only be done by the 
infinite synthesis in thought of finite wholes, which would 
itself require an infinite time for its accomplishment ; nor, 
for the same reason, can we follow out in thought an infinite 

divisibility of parts As the conditionally limited 

(which we may briefly call the conditioned) is thus the only 
possible object of knowledge, and of positive thought — 
thought necessarily supposes conditions. To think is to con- 
dition ; and conditional limitation is the fundamental law of 

the possibility of thought." " The conditioned is the 

mean between two extremes — two inconditionates, exclusive 



6 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

of each other, neither of which can be conceived as possible, 
but of which, on the principles of contradiction and excluded 
middle, one must be admitted as necessary" 

This theory may be epitomized as follows : — " The Un- 
conditioned denotes the genus of which the Infinite and 
Absolute are the species." This genus is inconceivable, is 
" negative of the conceivable itself." Hence both the species 
must be so also. Although they are thus incognizable, they 
may be defined ; the one, the Infinite, as " that which is be- 
yond all limits ; " the other, the Absolute, as " a whole beyond 
all conditions : " or, concisely, the one is illimitable immensity, 
the other, unconditional totality. As defined, these are seen 
to be " mutually repugnant : " that is, if there is illimitable 
immensity, there cannot be absolute totality ; and the reverse. 
Within these two all possible being is included ; and, because 
either excludes the other, it can be in only one. Since both 
are inconceivable we can never know in which the conditioned 
or conceivable being is. Either would give us a being — 
God — capable of accounting for the Universe. This fact 
is assumed to be a sufficient ground for faith ; and man may 
therefore rationally satisfy himself with the study of those 
matters which are cognizable — the conditioned. 

It is not our purpose at this point to enter upon a criticism 
of the philosophical theory thus enounced. This will fall, 
in the natural course, upon a subsequent page. We have 
stated it here, for the purpose of placing in that strong light 
which it deserves, another topic, which has received alto- 
gether too little attention from the opponents of the Limit- 
ists. Underlying and involved in the above theory, there 
is a question of fact, of the utmost importance. Sir William 
Hamilton's metaphysic rests upon his psychology; and if 
his psychology is true, his system is impregnable. It is his 
diagnosis of the human mind, then, which demands our at- 
tention. He has presented this in the following passage : — 

" While we regard as conclusive Kant's analysis of Time 
and Space into conditions of thought, we cannot help view- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 7 

ing his deduction of the ' Categories of Understanding ' and 
the ' Ideas of Speculative Reason ' as the work of a great 
but perverse ingenuity. The categories of understanding 
are merely subordinate forms of the conditioned. Why not, 
therefore, generalize the Conditioned — Existence Condi- 
tioned, as the supreme category, or categories, of thought ? — 
and if it were necessary to analyze this form into its subal- 
tern applications, why not develop these immediately out of 
the generic principle, instead of preposterously, and by a 
forced and partial analogy, deducing the laws of the under- 
standing from a questionable division of logical proposition ? 
Why distinguish Reason (Vernunft) from Understanding 
(Verstand), simply on the ground that the former is conver- 
sant about, or rather tends toward, the unconditioned ; when 
it is sufficiently apparent, that the unconditioned is conceived 
as the negation of the conditioned, and also that the concep- 
tion of contradictories is one ? In the Kantian philosophy, 
both faculties perform the same function, both seek the one 
in the many ; — the Idea (Idee) is only the Concept (Beg- 
riff) sublimated into the inconceivable ; Reason only the 
Understanding which has ' overleaped itself.' " 

Not stopping now to correct the entirely erroneous state- 
ment that " both faculties," L e., Understanding and Reason, 
u perform the same function," we are to notice the two lead- 
ing points which are made, viz. : — 1. That there is no dis- 
tinction between the Understanding and the Reason ; or, in 
other words, there is no such faculty as the Reason is 
claimed to be, there is none but the Understanding ; and, 
2. A generalization is the highest form of human knowledge ; 
both of which may be comprised in one affirmation ; the Un- 
derstanding is the highest faculty of knowledge belonging to 
the human soul. Upon this, a class of thinkers, following 
Plato and Kant, take issue with the logician, and assert that 
the distinction between the two faculties named above, has 
a substantial basis ; that, in fact, they are different in kind, 
and that the mode of activity in the one is wholly unlike 



8 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

the mode of activity in the other. Thus, then, is the great 
issue between the Hamiltonian and Platonic schools made 
upon a question of fact. He who would attack the former 
school successfully, must aim his blow straight at their funda- 
mental assumption ; and he who shall establish the fact of 
the Pure Reason as an unquestionable faculty in the human 
soul, will, in such establishment, accomplish the destruction 
of the Hamiltonian system of philosophy. Believing this 
system to be thoroughly vicious in its tendencies ; being such 
indeed, as would, if carried out, undermine the whole Chris- 
tian religion ; and what is of equal importance, being false 
to the facts in man's soul as God's creature, the writer will 
attempt to achieve the just named and so desirable result ; 
and by the mode heretofore indicated. 

It is required, then, to prove that there is a faculty belong- 
ing to the human soul, essentially diverse from the Sense or 
the Understanding ; a faculty peculiar and unique, which 
possesses such qualities as have commonly been ascribed by 
its advocates to the Pure Reason ; and thereby to establish 
such faculty as a fact, and under that name. 

Previous to bringing forward any proofs, it is important to 
make an exact statement of what is to be proved. To this 
end, let the following points be noted : — 

«. Its modes of activity are essentially diverse from those 
of the Sense or Understanding. The Sense is only capacity. 
According to the laws of its construction, it receives impres- 
sions from objects, either material, and so in a different place 
from' that which it occupies, or imaginary, and so proceeding 
from the imaging faculty in itself. But it is only capacity 
to receive and transmit impressions. The Understanding, 
though more than this, even faculty, is faculty shut within 
the limits of the Sense. According to its laws, it takes up 
the presentations of the Sense, analyzes and classifies them, 
and deduces conclusions : but it can attain to nothing more 
than was already in the objects presented. It can construct 
a system ; it cannot develop a science. It can observe a 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 9 

relation, it cannot intuit a law. What we seek is capacity, 
but of another and higher kind from that of the Sense. 
Sense can have no object except such, at least, as is con- 
structed out of impressions received from without. What 
we seek does not observe outside phenomena ; and can have 
no object except as inherent within itself. It is faculty more- 
over, but not faculty walled in by the Sense. It is faculty 
and capacity in one, which, possessing inherent within itself, 
as objects, the a 'priori conditional laws of the Universe, and 
the a priori conditional ideal forms which these laws, stand- 
ing together according to their necessary relations, compose, 
transcends, in its activity and acquisitions, all limitations 
of a Nature; and attends to objects which belong to the 
Supernatural, and hence which absoluteness qualifies. We 
observe, therefore, 

b. The objects of its activity are also essentially diverse 
in kind from those of the Sense and the Understanding. All 
the objects of the Sense must come primarily or secondarily, 
from a material Universe ; and the discussions and conclu- 
sions of the Understanding must refer to such a Universe. 
The faculty which we seek must have for its objects, laws, 
or, if the term suit better, first principles, which are reasons 
why conduct must be one way, and not another ; which, in 
their combinations, compose the forms conditional for all 
activity ; and which, therefore, constitute within us an a priori 
standard by which to determine the validity of all judgments. 
To illustrate. Linnaeus constructed a system of botanical 
classification, upon the basis of the number of stamens in a 
flower. This was satisfactory to the Sense and the Under- 
standing. Later students have, however, discovered that 
certain organic laws extend as a framework through the 
whole vegetable kingdom ; which, once seen, throw back the 
Linnaean system into company with the Ptolemaic Astron- 
omy ; and upon which laws a science of Botany becomes pos- 
sible. That faculty which intuits these laws, is called the 
Pure Reason. 



10 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

To recapitulate. What we seek is, in its modes and ob- 
jects of activity, diverse from the Sense and Understanding. 
It is at once capacity and faculty, having as object first prin- 
ciples, possessing these as an inherent heritage, and able to 
compare with them as standard all objects of the Sense and 
judgments of the Understanding; and to decide thereby 
their validity. These principles, and combinations of prin- 
ciples, are known as Ideas, and, being innate, are denomi- 
nated innate Ideas. It is their reality which Sir William 
Hamilton denies, declaring them to be only higher generali- 
zations of the Understanding, and it is the faculty called the 
Pure Reason, in which they are supposed to inhere, whose 
actuality is now to be proved. 

The effort to do this will be successful if it can be shown 
that the logician's statement of the facts is partial, and essen- 
tially defective ; what are the phenomena which cannot be 
comprehended in his scheme ; and, finally, that they can be 
accounted for on no other ground than that stated. 

1 . The statement of facts by the Limitists is partial and 
essentially defective. They start with the assumption that a 
generalization is the highest form of human knowledge. To 
appreciate this fully, let us examine the process they thus 
exalt. A generalization is a process of thought through 
which one advances from a discursus among facts, to a con- 
clusion, embodying a seemingly general truth, common to all 
the facts of the class. For instance. The inhabitants of 
the north temperate zone have long observed it to be a fact, 
that north winds are cold ; and so have arrived at the gen- 
eral conclusion that such winds will lower the temperature. 
A more extensive experience teaches them, however, that in 
the south temperate zone, north winds are warm, and their 
judgment has to be modified accordingly. A yet larger in- 
vestigation shows that, at one period in geologic history, 
north winds, even in northern climes, were warm, and that 
tropical animals flourished in arctic regions ; and the judg- 
ment is again modified. Now observe this most important 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 11 

fact here brought out. Every judgment may he modified by 
a larger experience. Apply this to another class of facts. 
An apple is seen to fall when detached from the parent stem. 
An arrow, projected into the air, returns again. An invisible 
force keeps the moon in its orbit. Other like phenomena are 
observed ; and, after patient investigation, it is found to be 
a fact, that there is a force in the system to which our planet 
belongs, which acts in a ratio inverse to the square of the 
distance, and which thus binds it together. But if a gener- 
alization is the highest form of knowledge, we can never be 
sure we are right, for a subsequent experience may teach us 
the reverse. We know we have not all the facts. We may 
again find that the north wind is elsewhere, or was once here, 
warm. Should a being come flying to us from another sphere 
so distant, that the largest telescope could catch no faintest 
ray, even, of its shining, and testify to us that there, the force 
we called gravitation, was inversely as the cube of the dis- 
tance, we could only accept the testimony, and modify our 
judgment accordingly. Conclusions of to-day may be errors 
to-morrow ; and we can never know we are right. The Lim- 
itists permit us only interminable examinations of intermi- 
nable changes in phenomena ; which afford no higher result 
than a new basis for new studies. 

From this wearisome/ Io-like wandering, the soul returns 
to itself, crying its wailing cry, " Is this true ? Is this all ? " 
when suddenly, as if frenzied by the presence of a god, it 
shouts exultingly " The truth ! the truth ! I see the eternal 
truth." 

- The assumption of the Limitists is not all the truth. Their 
diagnosis is both defective and false. It is defective, in that 
they have failed to perceive those qualities of universality 
and necessity, which most men instinctively accord to certain 
perceptions of the mind ; and false, in that they deny the 
reality of those qualities, and of the certain perceptions as 
modified by them, and the actuality of that mental faculty 
which gives the perceptions, and thus qualified. They state a 



12 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

part of the truth, and deny a part. The whole truth is, the 
mind both generalizes and intuits. 

It is the essential tenet of their whole scheme, that the 
human mind nowhere, and under no circumstance, makes an 
affirmation which it unreservedly qualifies as necessary and 
universal. Their doctrine is, that these affirmations seem to 
be such, but that a searching examination shows this seeming 
to be only a bank of fog. For instance. The mind seems 
to affirm that two and two must make four. " Not so," says 
the Limitist. " As a fact, we see that two and two do make 
four, but it may make five, or any other sum. For don't you 
see ? if two and two must make four, then the Infinite must 
see it so ; and if he must see it so, he is thereby conditioned ; 
and what is worse, we know just as much about it as he does." 
In reply to all such quibbles, it is to be said, — there is no 
seeming about it ! If the mind is not utterly mendacious, it 
affirms, positively and unreservedly, " Two and two are four, 
must be four ; and to see it so, is conditional for all intellect" 
Take another illustration. The mind instinctively, often un- 
consciously, always compulsorily, affirms that the sentiment, 
In society the rights of the individual can never trench upon 
the rights of the body politic, — is a necessary, and universally 
applicable principle ; which, however much it may be viola- 
ted, can never be changed. The whole fabric of society is 
based upon this. Could a mind think this away, it could not 
construct a practical system of society upon what would be 
left, — its negation. But the Limitists step in here, and say, 
" All this seems so, perhaps, but then the mind is so weak, 
that it can never be sure. You must modify (correct ?) this 
seeming, by the consideration that, if it is so, then the Infi- 
nite must know it so, and the finite and Infinite must know 
it alike, and the Infinite will be limited and conditioned 
thereby, which would be impious." Again, the intellect un- 
reservedly asserts, " There is no seeming in the matter. The 
utterance is true, absolutely and universally true, and every 
intellect must see it so." 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 13 

Illustrations like the above might be drawn from e very- 
science of which the human mind is cognizant. But more are 
not needed. Enough has been adduced to establish the fact 
of those qualities, universality and necessity, as inherent 
in certain mental affirmations. Having thus pointed out the 
essential defect of the logician's scheme, it is required to state : 

2. What the phenomena are which cannot be compre- 
hended therein. 

In general, it may be said that all those perceptions and 
assertions of the mind, which are instinctive, and which it 
involuntarily qualifies as universal and necessary, are not, 
and cannot be comprehended in Sir William Hamilton's 
scheme. To give an exhaustive presentation of all the 
a 'priori laws of the mind, would be beyond the scope of 
the present undertaking, and would be unnecessary to its 
success. This will be secured by presenting a classification 
of them, and sufficient examples under each class. More- 
over, to avoid a labor which would not be in place here, we 
shall attempt no new classification ; but shall accept without 
question, as ample for our purpose, that set forth by one of 
our purest and every way best thinkers, — Rev. Mark Hop- 
kins, D. D., President of Williams College, Mass. 

" The ideas and beliefs which come to us thus, may be 
divided into, first, mathematical ideas and axioms. These 
are at the foundation of the abstract sciences, having for 
their subject, quantity. In the second division are those 
which pertain to mere being and its relations. Upon these 
rest all sciences pertaining to actual being and its relations. 
The third division comprises those which pertain to beauty. 
These are at the foundation of aesthetical science. In the 
fourth division are those which pertain to morals and relig- 
ion. Of these the pervading element is the sense of obliga- 
tion or duty. Of this the idea necessarily arises in connec- 
tion with the choice by a rational being of a supreme end, 
and with the performance of actions supposed to bear upon 
that." — Moral Science, p. 161. 



14 KNOW THE TRUTH* 

First. — Mathematical ideas and axioms. 
Take, for instance, the multiplication table. Can any one, 
except a Limitist, be induced to believe that it was originally 
constructed ; that a will put it together, and might take it 
apart ? Seven times seven now make forty-nine. Will 
any one say that it might have been made to make forty- 
seven ; or that at some future time such may be the case ? 
Or again, take the axiom " Things which are equal to the 
same thing are equal to one another." Will some one say, 
that the intellectual beings in the universe might, with equal 
propriety, have been so constructed as to affirm that, in some 
instances, things which are equal to the same thing are une- 
qual to one another ? Or consider the properties of a triangle. 
Will our limitist teachers instruct us that these properties are 
a matter of indifference ; that for aught we know, the trian- 
gle might have been made to have three right angles ? Yet 
again. Examine the syllogism. Was its law constructed ? 

AllMisX; 

All Z is M ; 

All Z is X. 
Will any one say that perhaps, we don't know but it might 
have been so made, as to appear to us that the conclusion 
was Some Z is not X ? Or will the Limitists run into that 
miserable petty subterfuge of an assertion, " All this seems 
to us as it is, and we cannot see how it could be different ; 
but then, our minds are so feeble, they are confined in such 
narrow limits, that it would be the height of presumption to 
assert positively with regard to stronger minds, and those of 
wider scope ? Perhaps they see things differently." Perhaps 
they do ; but if they do, their minds or ours falsify ! The 
question is one of veracity, nothing more. Throughout all the 
range of mathematics, the positive and unqualified affirmation 
of the mind is that its intuitions are absolute and universal ; 
that they are a priori laws conditional of all intellect ; that 
of the Deity just as much as that of man. Feebleness and 
want of scope have nothing to do with mind in its affirma- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 15 

tion, " Seven times seven must make forty-nine ; and cannot by 
any possibility of effort make any other product ; " and every 
intellect, if it sees at all, must see it so. And so on through 
the catalogue. From this, it follows in this instance, that 
human knowledge is exhaustive, and so is exactly similar, 
and equal to the Deity's knowledge. 

Second. Those ideas and beliefs which pertain to mere 
being and its relations. 

Take, for instance, the axiom, A material body cannot ex- 
ist in the Universe without standing in some relation to all 
the other material bodies in that Universe. Either this is 
absolutely true, or it is not. If it is so true, then every in- 
tellectual being to whom it presents itself as object at all, 
must see it as every other does. One may see more rela- 
tions than another ; but the axiom in its intrinsic nature must 
be seen alike by all. If it is not absolutely true, then the 
converse, or any partially contradictory proposition, may be 
true. For example. A material body may exist in the Uni- 
verse, and stand in no relation to some of the other material 
bodies in that Universe. But, few men will hesitate to say, 
that this is not only utterly unthinkable, but that it could only 
become thinkable by a denial and destruction of the laws of 
thought ; or, in other words, by the stultification of the mind. 

Take another instance, arising from the fact of parentage 
and offspring, in the sentient beings of the world. A pair, 
no matter to what class they belong, by the fact of becoming 
parents, establish a new relation for themselves ; and, " after 
their kind," they are under bonds to their young. And, to a 
greater or less extent, their young have a claim upon them. 
As we ascend in the scale of being, the duty imposed is 
greater, and the claim of the offspring stronger. Whether 
it be the fierce eagle, or the timid dove, or the chirping spar- 
row ; whether it be the prowling lion, or the distrustful deer, 
or the cowering hare ; or whether it be the races of man who 
are examined, the relations established by parentage are 
everywhere recognized. Now, will one say that all this 



16 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

might be changed for aught we know ; that, what we call 
law, is only a judgment of mankind ; and so that this rela- 
tion did not exist at first, but was the product of growth ? 
And will one further say that there is no necessity or univer- 
sality in this relation ; but that the races might, for aught 
we know, have just as well been established with a parentage 
which involved no relation at all ; that the fabled indifference 
of the ostrich, intensified a hundredfold, might have been the 
law of sentient being ? Yet such results logically flow from 
the principles of the Limitists. Precisely the same line of 
argument might be pursued respecting the laws of human 
society. But it is not needed here. It is evident now, that 
what gives validity to judgments is the fact that they accord 
with an a priori principle in the mind. 

Third. The ideas and beliefs which pertain to beauty. 
A science of beauty has not yet been sufficiently developed 
to permit of so extensive an illustration of this class as the 
others. Yet enough is established for our purpose. Let us 
consider beauty as in proportioned form. It is said that cer- 
tain Greek mathematicians, subsequently to the Christian 
era, studied out a mathematical formula for the human body, 
and constructed a statue according to it ; and that both were 
pronounced at the time perfect. Both statue and formula 
are now lost. Be the story true, or a legend, there is valid 
ground for the assertion, that the mind instinctively assumes, 
in all its criticisms, the axiom, There is a perfect ideal by 
which as standard, all art must be judged. The very fact 
that the mind, though acknowledging the imperfection of its 
own ideal, unconsciously asserts, that somewhere, in some 
mind, there is an ideal, in which a perfect hand joins a per- 
fect arm, and a perfect foot a perfect leg, and these a perfect 
trunk ; and a perfect neck supports a perfect head, adorned 
by perfect features, and thus there is a perfect ideal, is deci- 
sive that such an ideal exists. And this conclusion is true, 
because God who made us, and constructed the ground from 
whence this instinctive affirmation springs, is true. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 17 

Take another instance. Few men, who have studied 
Gothic spires, have failed to observe that the height of some, 
in proportion to their base, is top great, and that of others, 
too small. The mind irresistibly affirms, that between these 
opposite imperfections, there is a golden mean, at which the 
proportion shall be perfect. When the formula of this pro- 
portion shall be studied out, any workman, who is skilled 
with tools, can construct a perfect spire. The law once dis- 
covered and promulgated, becomes common knowledge. Me- 
chanical skill will be all that can differentiate one workman 
from another. The fact that the law has not been discovered 
yet, throws no discredit upon the positive affirmation of the 
mind, that there must be such a law ; any more than the fact 
of Newton's ignorance of the law of gravitation, when he 
saw the apple fall, discredited his instinctive affirmation, upon 
seeing that phenomenon, there is a law in accordance with 
which it fell. 

Now how comes the mind instinctively and positively to 
make these assertions. If they were judgments, the mind 
would only speak of probabilities ; but here, it qualifies the 
assertion with necessity. Men, however positive in their 
temperament, do not say, " I know it will rain to-morrow," 
but only, " In all probability it will." Not so here. Here 
the mind refuses to express itself doubtfully. Its utterance 
is the extreme of positiveness. It says must. And if its 
affirmation is not true, then there is no reason why those 
works of art which are held in highest esteem, should be 
adjudged better than the efforts of the tyro, except the whim 
of the individual, or the arbitrary determination of their 
admirers. 

Fourth. The ideas and beliefs which pertain to morals 
and religion. 

We now enter a sphere of which no understanding could 

by any possibility ever guess, much less investigate. Here 

no sense could ever penetrate ; there is no object for it to 

perceive. Here all judgments are impertinent ; for in this 

2 



18 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

sphere are only laws, and duties, and obligations. An un- 
derstanding cannot u conceive " of a moral law, because such 
a law is inconceivable ; and it cannot perceive one, because 
it has no eye. If it were competent to explain every phe- 
nomenon in the other classes, it would be utterly impotent 
to explain a single phenomenon in this. What is moral ob- 
ligation ? Whence does it arise, or how is it imposed ? and 
who will enforce it, and how will it be enforced ? All these, 
and numerous such other questions, cannot be raised even 
by the Understanding, much less answered by it. The moral 
law of the Universe is one which can be learned from no 
judgment, or combination of judgments. It can be learned 
only by being seen. The moral law is no conclusion, which 
may be modified by a subsequent experience. It is an affir- 
mation which is imperative. To illustrate. It is an axiom, 
that the fact of free moral agency involves the fact of obliga- 
tion. Man is a free moral agent; and so, under the obli- 
gation imposed. At the first, it was optional with the Deity 
whether he would create man or not. But will any one 
assert that, having determined to create man such as he is, it 
was optional with him, whether man should be under the 
obligation, or not ? Can man be a free moral agent, and be 
free from the duties inherent therein ? Does not the mind 
instinctively and necessarily affirm, that the fact of free moral 
agency assures the fact of such a relation to God's moral 
government, that obligation must follow ? One cannot hesi- 
tate to say, that the formula, A free agent may be released 
from his obligation to moral law, is absolutely unthinkable. 

Again, no judgment can attain to the moral law of the 
Universe ; and yet man knows it. Jesus Christ, when he 
proclaimed that law in the words " Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy mind and strength, and thy neighbor 
as thyself," only uttered what no man can, in thought, deny. 
A man can no more think selfishness as the moral law of 
the Universe, than he can think two and two to be five. Man 
not only sees the law, but he feels and acknowledges the 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 19 

obligation, even in his rebellion. In fact there would be 
no rebellion, no sense of sin, if there were no obligation. 
Whence comes the authority of the law? No power can 
give it authority, or enforce obedience. Power can crush a 
Universe, it cannot change a heart. The law has, and can 
have authority ; it imposes, and can impose obligation ; only 
because it is an a 'priori law of the Universe, alike binding 
upon all moral beings, upon God as well as man ; and is 
so seen immediately, and necessarily, by a direct intuition. 
Man finds this law fundamental to his self; and as well, a 
necessarily fundamental law of all moral beings. Therefore 
he acknowledges it. And the very efforts he makes to set 
up a throne for Passion, over against the throne of Benevo- 
lence, is an involuntary acknowledgment of the authority of 
that law he seeks to rival. 

It was said above, that neither Sense nor Understanding 
can take any cognizance of the objects of investigation which 
fall in this class. This is because the Sense can gather no 
material over which the Understanding can run. Is the 
moral law matter ? No. How then can the Sense observe 
it ? One answer may possibly be made, viz. : It is deduced 
from the conduct of men ; and sense observes that. To this 
it is replied 

a. The allegation is not true. Most men violate the moral 
law of the Universe. Their conduct accords with the law 
of selfishness. Such conclusions as that of Hobbes, that war 
is the natural condition of Society, are those which would 
follow from a consideration of man, as he appears to the 
Sense. 

5. If it were true, the question obtrudes itself,— How came 
it there ? How came this fundamental law to he ? and to this 
the Sense and Understanding return no shadow of answer. 

But from the stand-point of a Pure Reason, all is clear. 
All the ideas and beliefs, every process of thought which 
belongs to this sphere, are absolute and universal. They 
must be what they are ; and so are conditional of all moral 



20 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

beings. Here what the human mind sees, is just what the 
Deity sees ; and it sees just as the Divine mind sees, so that 
the truth, as far as so seen, is common to both. 

Although the facts which have been adduced above, are 
inexplicable by the Limitists, and are decisive of the actu- 
ality of the Reason, as it has been heretofore described, yet 
another line of argument of great weight must not be omit- 
ted. There are in language certain positive terms, which 
the Limitists, and the advocates of the Reason agree in 
asserting cannot convey any meaning to, or be explained by 
the Sense and Understanding. Such are the words infinite 
and absolute. The mere presence of such words in language, 
as positive terms, is a decisive evidence of the fact, that there 
is also a faculty which entertains positive ideas corresponding 
to them. Sir William Hamilton's position in this matter, is 
not only erroneous, but astonishing. He asserts that these 
words express only " negative notions." " They," the infinite 
and absolute, " can be conceived only by a thinking away 
from, or abstraction of, those very conditions under which 
thought itself is realized ; consequently, the notion of the 
Unconditioned is only negative — negative of the conceivable 
itself." But, if this is true, how came these words in the 
language at all? Negative ideas produce negative expres- 
sions. Indeed, the Limitists are confidently challenged to 
designate another case in language, in which a positive term 
can be alleged to have a purely negative signification. Take 
an illustration to which we shall recur further on. The 
question has been raised, whether a sixth sense can be. Can 
the Limitists find in language, or can they construct, a posi- 
tive term which will represent the negation of a sixth sense ? 
We find in language the positive terms, ear and hearing ; but 
can such positive terms be found, which will correspond to 
the phrase, no sixth sense ? In this instance, in physics, the 
absurdity is seen at once. Why is not as readily seen the 
equal absurdity of affirming that, in metaphysics, positive 
terms have grown up in the language which are simple 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 21 

negations ? Here, for the present, the presentation of facts 
may rest. Let us recapitulate those which have been ad- 
duced. The axioms in mathematics, the principles of the 
relations of being, the laws of aesthetics, and most of all the 
whole system of principles pertaining to morals and religion, 
standing, as they do, a series of mental affirmations, which 
all mankind, except the Limitists, qualify as necessary and 
universal, compel assent to the proposition, that there must 
be a faculty different in kind from the Sense and Under- 
standing, — for these have already been found impotent — 
which can be ground to account for all these facts satisfac- 
torily. And the presence in language of such positive terms 
as absolute and infinite, is a most valuable auxiliary argu- 
ment. The faculty which is required, — the faculty which 
qualifies all the products of its activity with the characteris- 
tics above named, is the Pure Eeason. And its actuality 
may therefore be deemed established. 

The Pure Reason having thus been proved to be, it is next 
required to show the mode of its activity. This can best be 
done, by first noticing the kind of results which it produces. 
The Reason gives us, not thoughts, but ideas. These are 
simple, pure, primary, necessary. It is evident that any such 
object of mental examination can be known only in, and by, 
itself. It cannot be analyzed, for it is simple. It cannot 
be compared, for it is pure ; and so possesses no element 
which can be ground for a comparison. It cannot be de- 
duced, for it is primary and necessary. It can only be seen. 
Such an object must be know-n under the following circum- 
stances. It must be inherent in the seeing faculty, and must 
be immediately and directly seen by that faculty ; all this in 
such a manner, that the abstraction of the object seen, would 
annihilate the faculty itself. Now, how is it w 7 ith the Rea- 
son ? Above we found it to be both capacity and faculty : 
capacity in that it possessed as integral elements, a priori 
first principles, as objects of sight ; faculty in that it saw, 
brought forward, and made available, those principles. The 



22 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

mode of activity of the Pure Reason is then a seeing, direct, 
immediate, sure ; which holds pure truth fast, right in the 
very centre of the field of vision. This act of the Reason in 
thus seeing pure truth is best denominated an intuition of 
the Reason. And here it may be said, — If perception and 
perceive could be strictly confined to the Sense ; concept and 
conceive to the Understanding ; and intuition and intuit to 
the Reason, a great gain would be made in accuracy of ex- 
pression regarding these departments of the mind. 

Having thus, as it is believed, established the fact of the 
existence of a Pure Reason, and shown the mode of its 
activity, it devolves to declare the function of that faculty. 

The function of the Pare Reason is, first : — to intuit, by 
an immediate perception, the a priori elemental principles 
which condition all being ; second, — to intuit, by a like im- 
mediate perception, those principles, combined in a priori 
systematic processes, which are the conditional ideal forms 
for all being ; and third, — again to intuit, by another imme- 
diate perception, precisely similar in kind to the others, the 
fact, at least, of the perfectly harmonious combination of all 
a priori elemental principles, in all possible systematic pro- 
cesses, into a perfect unity, — an absolute, infinite Person, — 
God. 

To illustrate. 

1. The Reason asserts that "Malice is criminal;" and 
that it is necessarily criminal ; or, in other words, that no act, 
of any will, can make it otherwise than it is. The assertion, 
then, that " Malice is criminal," is an axiom, and conditions 
all being, God as well as man. 

2. The Reason asserts that every mathematical form must 
be seen in Space and Time, and it affirms the same necessity 
in this as in the former case. 

3. The full illustration of this point would be Anselm's 
a priori argument for the existence of God. His statement 
of it should, however, be so modified as to appear, not as an 
a priori argument for the existence of God, but as an ampli- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 23 

fied declaration of the fact, that the existence of God is a 
first principle of Reason ; and as such, can no more be de- 
nied than the multiplication table. Objection. — This doc- 
trine degrades God to the level of the finite ; both being 
alike conditioned. Answer. — By no means ; as will be 
seen from the two following points. 

1. It is universally acknowledged that God must be self- 
existent, which means, if it means anything, that the exist- 
ence of God is beyond his own control ; or, in other words, 
that self-existence is an a priori elemental principle, which 
conditions God's existing at all. 

2. In the two instances under consideration, the word con- 
dition has entirely different significations. God is conditioned 
only by Himself. Not only is this conditioning not a limita- 
tion, properly speaking, but the very absence of limitation. 
The fact that He is absolute and infinite, is a condition of 
His existence. Man's conditions are the very opposite of 
these. He is relative, instead of absolute ; finite, instead 
of infinite ; dependent, instead of self-existent. Hence he 
differs in kind from God as do his conditions. 

Such being the function of the Pure Reason, it is fully 
competent to solve the difficulties raised by Sir William 
Hamilton and his followers ; and the statement of such 
solution is the work immediately in hand. 

Much of the difficulty and obscurity which have, thus far, 
attended every discussion of this subject, will be removed by 
examining the definitions given to certain terms ; — either 
by statement, or by implication in the use made of them ; — 
by exposing the errors involved ; and by clearly expressing 
the true signification of each term. 

By way of criticism the general statement may be made, — 
that the Limitists — as was natural from their rejection of 
the faculty of the Pure Reason — use only such terms, and 
in such senses, as are pertinent to those subjects which come 
under the purvey of the Understanding and the Sense ; but 
which are entirely impertinent, in reference to the sphere of 



24 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

spiritual subjects. The two following phases of this error 
are sufficient to illustrate the criticism. 

1. The terms Infinite and Absolute are used to express 
abstractions. For instance, " the infinite, from a human point 
of view, is merely a name for the absence of those conditions 
under which thought is possible." " It is thus manifest that 
a consciousness of the Absolute is equally self-contradictory 
with that of the Infinite." — Limits of Religious Thought, 
pp. 94 and 96. If asked "Absolute" what? "Infinite" 
what ? Will you allow person, or other definite term to be 
supplied ? Mansel would reply ■ — No ! no possible answer 
can be given by man. 

Now, without passing at all upon the question whether 
these terms can represent concrete objects of thought or not, 
it is to be said, that the use of them to express abstract no- 
tions, is utterly unsound. The mere fact of abstraction is 
an undoubted limitation. There may be an Infinite and Ab- 
solute Person. By no possibility can there be an abstract 
Infinite. 

2. But a more glaring and unpardonable error is made by 
the Limitists in their use of the words infinite and absolute, 
as expressing quantity. Take a few examples from many. 

" For example, we can positively conceive, neither an ab- 
solute whole, that is, a whole so great that we cannot also 
conceive it as a relative part of a still greater whole ; nor an 
absolute part, that is, a part so small, that we cannot also 
conceive it as a relative whole, divisible into smaller parts. 
On the other hand, we cannot positively represent, or realize, 
or construe to the mind (as here understanding and imagina- 
tion coincide), an infinite whole, for this could only be done 
by the infinite synthesis in thought of finite wholes which 
would itself require an infinite time for its accomplishment ; 
nor, for the same reason, can w r e follow out in thought an 
infinite divisibility of parts." — Hamilton's Essays, p. 20. 

" The metaphysical representation of the Deity as abso- 
lute and infinite, must necessarily, as the profoundest meta- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 25 

physicians have acknowledged, amount to nothing less than 
the sum of all reality." — Limits of Religious Thought, p. 76. 

" Is the First Cause finite or infinite ? To think 

of the First Cause as finite, is to think of it as limited. To 
think of it as limited, necessarily implies a conception of 
something beyond its limits ; it is absolutely impossible to 
conceive a thing as bounded, without conceiving a region sur- 
rounding its boundaries." - — Spencer's First Principles, p. 37. 

The last extract tempts one to ask Mr. Spencer if he ever 
stood on the north side of the affections. Besides the ex- 
tracts selected, any person reading the authors above named, 
will find numerous phrases like these : " infinite whole," " in- 
finite sum," " infinite number," " infinite series," by which 
they express sometimes a mathematical, and sometimes a 
material amount. 

Upon this whole topic it is to be said, that the terms infi- 
nite and absolute have, and can have, no relevancy to any 
object of the Sense or of the Understanding, judging ac- 
cording to the Sense, or to any number. There is no 
whole, no sum, no number, no amount, but is definite and 
limited ; and to use those words with the word infinite, is as 
absurd as to say an infinite finite. And to use words thus, 
is to " multiply words without knowledge." 

Again, the lines of thought which these writers pursue, do 
not tend in any degree to clear up the fogs in which they 
have lost themselves, but only make the muddle thicker. 
Take, for instance, the following extract : — 

" Thus we are landed in an inextricable dilemma. The 
Absolute cannot be conceived as conscious, neither can it be 
conceived as unconscious ; it cannot be conceived as complex, 
neither can it be conceived as simple ; it cannot be conceived 
by difference, neither can it be conceived by the absence of 
difference ; it cannot be identified with the Universe, neither 
can it be distinguished from it. The One and the Many, 
regarded as the beginning of existence, are thus alike incom- 
prehensible." — Limits of Religious Thought" p. 79. 



26 KNOW THE TRUTH* 

The soul, while oaring her way with weary wing, over the 
watery waste of such a philosophy, can find no rest for the 
sole of her foot, except on that floating carcase of a doctrine, 
Chaos is God. The simple fact that such confusion logically 
results from the premises of the Limitists, is a sufficient war- 
rant for rejecting their whole system of thought, — principle 
and process ; and for striking for a new base of operations. 
But where shall such a base be sought for ? On what im- 
mutable Ararat can the soul find her ark, and a sure resting- 
place ? Man seeks a Rock upon which he can climb and cry, 
I know that this is truth. Where is the Everlasting Rock ? 
In our search for the answer to these queries, we may be 
aided by setting forth the goal to be reached, — the object to 
be obtained. 

By observation and reflection man comes to know that he 
is living in, and forms part of, a system of things, which he 
comprehensively terms the Universe. The problem is, — 
To find an Ultimate Ground, a Final Cause, which shall be 
adequate to account for the existence and sustentation of this 
Universe. There are but two possible directions from which 
the solution of this problem can come. It must be found 
either within the Universe, or without the Universe. 

Can it be found within the Universe ? If it can, one of 
two positions must be true. Either a part of the Universe 
is cause for the existence of the whole of the Universe ; or 
the Universe is self-existent. Upon the first position nothing 
need be said. Its absurdity is manifested in the very state- 
ment of it. A full discussion, or, in fact, anything more than 
a notice of the doctrine of Pantheism, set forth in the second 
point, would be beyond the intention of the author. The 
questions at issue lie not between theists and pantheists, but 
between those who alike reject Pantheism as erroneous. The 
writer confesses himself astonished that a class of rational 
men could ever have been found, who should have attempted 
to find the Ultimate Ground of the Universe in itself. All 
that man can know of the facts of the Universe, he learns 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 27 

by observation ; and the sum of the knowledge he thus gains 
is, that a vast system of physical objects exists. From the 
facts observed, he draws conclusions : but the stream cannot 
rise higher than its fountain. With reference to any lesser 
object, as a watch, the same process goes on. A watch is. 
It has parts ; and these parts move in definite relations to 
each other ; and to secure a given object. If now, any per- 
son, upon being asked to account for the existence of the 
watch, should confine himself wholly to an examination of 
the nature of the springs, the wheels, the hands, face, &c, 
endeavoring to find the reason of its being within itself, the 
world would laugh at him. How much more justly may the 
world laugh, yea, shout its ridicule, at the mole-eyed man 
who rummages among the springs and wheels of the vast 
machine of the Universe, to find the reason of its being. In 
the former instance, the bystander would exclaim, — " The 
watch is an evidence of intelligence. Man is the only intel- 
ligent being on the earth; and is superior to the watch. 
Man made the watch." And his assertion would be true. 
A fortiori would a bystander of the Universe exclaim, u The 
Universe is -an evidence of intelligence. An intelligent Being, 
superior to the Universe, made the Universe." And his 
assertion is true. We are driven then to our last position ; 
but it is the Gibraltar of Philosophy. 

The Ultimate Ground of the Universe must be 
sought for, and can only be found, without 
the Universe. 

From this starting-point alone can we proceed, with any 
hope of reaching the goal. Setting out on our new course, 
we will gain a step by noticing a fact involved in the illus- 
tration just given. The bystander exclaims, " The watch is 
an evidence of intelligence." In this very utterance is ne- 
cessarily expressed the fact of two diverse spheres of exist- 
ence : the one the sphere of matter, the other the sphere of 
mind. One cannot think of matter except as inferior, nor 



28 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

of mind except as superior. These two, matter and mind, 
comprise all possible existence. The Reason not only can- 
not see how any other existence can be, but affirms that no 
other can be. Mind, then, is the Ultimate Ground of the 
Universe. What mind ? 

By examination, man perceives what appears to be an 
order in the Universe, concludes that there is such an order, 
assumes the conclusion to be valid, and names the order Na- 
ture. Turning his eye upon himself, he finds himself not 
only associated with, but, through a portion of his faculties, 
forming a part of that Nature. But a longer, sharper scru- 
tiny, a profounder examination, reveals to him his soul's most 
secret depth ; and the fact of his spiritual personality glows 
refulgent in the calm light of consciousness. He sees him- 
self, indeed, in Nature ; but he thrills with joy at the quickly 
acquired knowledge that Nature is only a nest, in which he, 
a purely supernatural being, must flutter for a time, until he 
shall be grown, and ready to plume his flight for the Spirit 
Land. If then, man, though bound in Nature, finds his cen- 
tral self utterly diverse from, and superior to Nature, so that " 
he instinctively cries, " My soul is worth more than a Uni- 
verse of gold and diamonds ; " a fortiori must that Being, 
who is the Ultimate Ground, not only of Nature, but of those 
supernatural intelligences who live in Nature, be supernatu- 
ral, spiritual, and supreme ? 

Just above, it was seen that matter and mind comprise all 
possible existence. It has now been found that mind, in its 
highest form, even in man, is pure spirit ; and as such, wholly 
supernatural. It has further been determined, that the ob- 
ject of our search must be the Supreme Spirit. 

Just at this point it is suitable to notice, what is, perhaps, 
the most egregious and unpardonable blunder the Limitists 
have made. In order to do this satisfactorily, the following 
analysis of the human mind is presented. The soul is a 
spiritual person, and an animal nature. To this animal na- 
ture belong the Sense and the Understanding. It is univer- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 29 

sally acknowledged, — at least the Limitists will not deny, — 
that the Sense and the Understanding are wholly within, and 
conditioned by Nature. Observe then their folly. They 
deny that a part can account for a whole ; they reject Pan- 
theism ; and yet they employ only those faculties which they 
confess are wholly within and conditioned by Nature — for 
they deny the existence of the Pure Reason, the perceptive 
faculty of the spiritual person — to search, only in Nature, 
for the cause of Nature, A fly would buzz among the wheels 
of a clock to as little purpose. 

The result arrived at just above, now claims our careful 
attention. 

The Ultimate Ground of the Universe is the Supreme 
Spirit. 

To appreciate this result, we must return to our analysis 
of man. In his spiritual personality we have found him 
wholly supernatural. We have further found that, only as a 
spiritual person is he capable of pursuing this investigation to 
a final and valid termination. If, then, we would complete our 
undertaking, we must ascend into a sphere whose light no 
eagle's eye can ever bear ; and whose atmosphere his daring 
wing can never beat. There no sense can ever enter ; no 
judgments are needed. Through Reason — the soul's far- 
darting eye, — and through Reason alone, can we gaze on the 
Immutable. 

Turning this searching eye upon ourselves, we find that 
man, as spiritual person, is a Pure Reason, — the faculty 
which gives him a priori first principles, as the standard for 
conduct and the forms for activity, — a Spiritual Sensibility, 
which answers with emotive music to the call of the Reason ; 
and lastly, a Will, in which the Person dwells central, sol- 
itary, and supreme, the final arbiter of its own destiny. 
Every such being is therefore a miniature final cause. 

The goal of our search must be near at hand. In man 
appears the very likeness of the Being we seek. His high- 
est powers unmistakably shadow forth the form of that Being, 



30 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

who is The Final. Man originates; but he is dependent 
for his power, and the sphere of that power is confined to 
his own soul. We seek a being who can originate, who is 
utterly independent ; and the sphere of whose activity ex- 
tends wherever, without himself, he chooses. Man, after a 
process of culture, comes to intuit some first principles, in 
some combinations. We seek a being who necessarily sees, 
at once and forever, all possible first principles, in all possi- 
ble relations, as the ideal forms for all possible effort. Man 
stumbles along on the road of life, frequently ignorant of 
the way, but more frequently perversely violating the eternal 
law which he finds written on his heart. We seek a being 
who never stumbles, but who is perfectly wise ; and whose 
conduct is in immutable accord with the a priori standards 
of his Reason. Man is a spiritual person, dependent for ex- 
istence, and limited to himself in his exertions. He whom 
we seek will be found to be also a spiritual person who is 
self-existent, and who sets his own bounds to his activity. 

That the line of thought we are now pursuing is the true 
one, and that the result which we approach, and are about 
to utter, is well founded, receives decisive confirmation from 
the following facts. Man perceives that malice must be 
criminal. Just so the Eternal Eye must see it. A similar 
remark is true of mathematical, and all other a priori laws. 
Sometimes, at least, there awakens in man's bosom the unut- 
terable thrill of benevolence ; and thus he tastes of the crys- 
tal river which flows, calmly and forever, through the bosom 
of the " Everlasting Father." For his own conduct, man is 
the final cause. In this is he, must he be, the likeness of 
the Ultimate. Spiritual personality is the highest possible 
form of being. It is then a form common to God and man. 
Here, therefore, Philosophy and Revelation are at one. 
With startling, and yet grateful unanimity, they affirm the 
solemn truth, " God made man in his own image." 

We reach the goal at last. The Final Truth stands full 
in the field of our vision. " I am Alpha and Omega, the 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 31 

beginning and the ending, saith Jehovah, who is, and who 
was, and who is to come, the Almighty." That spiritual 
Person who is self-existent, absolute, and infinite, 
is the Ultimate Ground, the Final Cause of the 
Universe. 

The problem of the Universe is solved. We stand within 
the portico of the sublime temple of truth. Mortal has lifted, 
at last, the veil of Isis, and looked upon the eternal mysteries. 

It is manifest now, how irrelevant and irreverent those 
expressions must be, in which the terms infinite and absolute 
are employed as signifying abstractions or amounts. They 
can have no meaning with reference to the Universe. But 
what their true significance is, stands out with unmistakable 
clearness and precision. 

1. Absoluteness is that distinctive spiritual quality of the 
necessary Being which establishes Him as unqualified except 
by Himself and as complete. 

2. Absoluteness and Unconditionedness are, — the one the 
positive, and the other the negative term expressive of the 
same idea. 

3. Infinity is that distinctive spiritual quality of the 
necessary Being which gives to Him universality. 

Absoluteness and Infinity are, then, spiritual qualities of 
the self-existent Person, which, distinguishing Him from all 
other persons, constitute Him unique and supreme. 

It is a law of Logic, which even the child must acknowl- 
edge, that whenever, by a process of thought, a result has 
been attained and set forth, he who propounds the result is 
directly responsible for all that is logically involved in it. 
The authority of that law is here both acknowledged and 
invoked. The most rigid and exhaustive logical develop- 
ment of the premises heretofore obtained, which the human 
mind is capable of, is challenged, in the confidence that 
there can be found therein no jot of discrepancy, no tittle 
of contradiction. As germain, and important to the matter 
in hand, some steps in this development will be noted. 



BZ KNOW THE TRUTH. 

In solving the problem placed before us, viz : To account 
for the being and continuance of the Universe, we have 
found that the Universe and its Cause are two distinct and 
yet intimately and necessarily connected beings, the one de- 
pendent upon the other, and that other utterly independent ; 
and so that the one is limited and finite, and the other abso- 
lute and infinite ; that the one is partly thing and partly per- 
son, and that to both thing and person limitation and finite- 
ness belong ; while the other is wholly person, and conse- 
quently the pure, absolute, and infinite Person. We have 
further found that absoluteness and infinity are spiritual 
qualities of that one Person, which are incommunicable, and 
differentiate Him from all other possible beings ; and which 
establish Him as the uncaused, self-active ground for all 
possible beings besides. It is then a Person with all the 
limitations and conditions of personality, — a Person at once 
limited and unlimited, conditioned and unconditioned, related 
and unrelated, whose limitations, conditions, and relations 
are entirely consistent with his absoluteness and infinity, who 
is the final Cause, the Ultimate Ground of the Universe. 

The finite person is self-conscious, and in a measure self- 
comprehending ; but he only partially perceives the workings 
of his own being. A fortiori, must the infinite Person be 
self-conscious, and exhaustively self-comprehending. The 
finite person is an intellect, sensibility, and will ; but these 
are circumscribed by innumerable limitations. So must the 
infinite Person be intellect, sensibility, and will ; but His 
intellect must be' Universal Genius ; His sensibility Pure De- 
light, and His will, as choice, Universal Benevolence, and as 
act, Omnipotence. 

1. As intellect, the infinite Person is Universal Genius. 

Then, he "must possess the primary copies or patterns of 
what it is possible may be, in his own subjective apprehen- 
sion ; " or, in other words, " The pure ideals of all possible 
entities, lie as pure reason conceptions in the light of the 
divine intelligence, and in these must be found the rules 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 33 

after which the creative agency must go forth." These a 
priori " pure ideals " are conditional of his knowledge. 
They are the sum and limit of all possible knowledge. He 
must know them as they are. He cannot intuit, or think 
otherwise than in accordance with them. However many 
there may be of these ideals, the number is fixed and defi- . 
nite, and must be so ; and so the infinite Person must see it. 
In fine, in the fact of exhaustive self-comprehension is in- 
volved the fact, that the number of his qualities, attributes, 
faculties, forms of activity, and acts, are, and must be lim- 
ited, definite, and so known to him ; and yet he is infinite 
and absolute, and thoroughly knows himself to be so. 

2. As sensibility, the infinite Person is Pure Delight. 

Then he exists in a state of unalloyed and complete bliss, 
produced by the ceaseless consciousness of his perfect worth 
and worthiness, and his entire complacency therein. Yet he 
is pleased with the good conduct, and displeased with the 
evil conduct, of the moral beings he has made. And if two 
are good, and one better than another, he loves the one more 
than the other. Yet all this in no way modifies, or limits, or 
lessens his own absolute self-satisfaction and happiness. 

S. As will, the infinite Person is, in choice, Universal Be- 
nevolence ; in act, Omnipotence. 

a. In choice, the whole personality, — both the spontaneous 
and self activity, are entirely and concordantly active in the 
one direction. Some of the objects towards which this state 
manifests itself may be very small. The fact that each re- 
ceives the attention appropriate to his place in the system of 
beings in no way modifies the Great Heart, which spontane- 
ously prompts to all good acts. But 

b. In act, the infinite Person, though omnipotent, is, al- 
ways must be, limited. His ability to act is limited and 
determined by the " pure ideals," in which " must be found 
the rules after which the creative agency must go forth." In 
act he is also limited by his choice. The fact that he is 
Universal Benevolence estops him from performing any act 

3 



34 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

which is not in exact accordance therewith. He cannot con- 
struct a rational being, to whom two and two will appear 
five ; and if he should attempt to, he would cease to be per- 
fect Goodness. Again, the infinite Person performs an act 
— of Creation. The act is, must be, limited and definite ; and 
so must the product — the Universe be. He cannot create 
an unlimited Universe, nor perform an infinite act. The very 
words unlimited Universe, and as well the notions they ex- 
press, are contradictory, and annihilate each other. Further, 
an infinite act, even if possible, would not, could not create, 
or have any relation to the construction of a Universe. An 
infinite act must be the realization of an infinite ideal. The 
infinite Person has a thorough comprehension of himself; 
and consequently a complete idea of himself. That idea, 
being the idea of the infinite Person, is infinite ; and it is the 
only possible infinite idea. He finds this idea realized in 
himself. But, should it be in his power to realize it again, 
that exertion of power would be an infinite act, and its 
product another infinite Person. No other infinite act, and 
no other result, are rationally supposable. 

The Universe, then, however large it be, is, must be, lim- 
ited and definite. Its magnitude may be inconceivable to us ; 
but in the mind of its Creator every atom is numbered. No 
spirit may ever have skirted its boundary ; but that boundary 
is as clear and distinct to his eye as the outline of the Alps 
against a clear sky is to the traveller's. The questions Where ? 
How far ? How long ? How much ? and the like, are per- 
tinent only in the Universe ; and their answers are always 
limited and definite. 

The line of thought we have been pursuing is deemed by 
a large class of thinkers not only paradoxical, but utterly 
contradictory and self-destructive. We speak of a Person, 
a term which necessarily involves limitation and condition, 
as infinite and absolute. We speak of this infinity and abso- 
luteness as spiritual qualities, which are conditional and lim- 
iting to him. We speak of him as conditioned by an ina- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 35 

bility to be finite. In fine, to those good people, the Limitists, 
our sense seems utter nonsense. It is required, therefore, 
for the completion of this portion of our task, to present a 
rational ground upon which these apparent contradictions 
shall become manifestly consistent. 

In those sentences where the infinite Person is spoken of 
as limited and unlimited, &c, it is evident that there is a 
play upon words, and that they apply to different qualities in 
the personality. It is not said, of course, that the number of 
his faculties is limited and unlimited ; or that his self-com- 
placency is boundless and constrained ; or that his act is con- 
ditioned and unconditioned. Nor are these seeming para- 
doxes stated to puzzle and disturb. They are written to 
express a great, fundamental, and all-important truth, which 
seems never once to have shadowed the minds of the Limit- 
ists, — a truth which, when once seen, dispels forever all 
the ghostly battalions of difficulties which they have raised. 
The truth is this. 

That Being whose limitations, conditions, and relations 
are wholly subjective, i. e. find their whole base and spring 
in his self; and who is therefore entirely free from all pos- 
sible limitations, conditions, and relations, from without him- 
self; and who possesses, therefore, all possible fulness of all 
possible excellences, and finds the perennial acme of happi- 
ness in self-contemplation, and the consciousness of his per- 
fect worth ; and being such is ground for all other possible 
being ; is, in the true philosophical sense, unrelated, uncon- 
ditioned, unlimited. Or, in other words, the conditions im- 
posed by Universal Genius upon the absolute and infinite 
Person are different in hind from the conditions imposed 
upon finite persons and physical things. The former in no 
way diminish aught from the fulness of their possessor's en- 
dowments ; the latter not only do so diminish, but render 
it impossible for their possessor to supply the deficiency. 

The following dictum will, then, concisely and exactly 
express the truth we have attained. 



8b KNOW THE TRUTH. 

Those only are conditions, in the philosophical sense, which 
diminish the fulness of the possessor's endowments. 

An admirable illustration of this truth can be drawn from 
some reflections of Laurens P. Hickok, D. D., which we 
quote. " What we need is not merely a rule by which to 
direct the process in the attainment of any artistic end, but 
we must find the legislator who may determine the end itself. 

Whence is the ultimate behest that is to determine 

the archetype, and control the pure spontaneity in its action. 

" Must the artist work merely because there is an inner 
want to gratify, with no higher end than the gratification of 
the highest constitutional craving? Can we find nothing 
beyond a want, which shall from its own behest demand that 
this, and not its opposite, shall be ? Grant that the round 
worlds and all their furniture are good — but why good? 
Certainly as means to an end. Grant that this end, the hap- 
piness of sentient beings, is good — but why good ? Because 
it supplies the want of the Supreme Architect. And is this 
the supreme good ? Surely if it is, we are altogether within 
nature's conditions, call our ultimate attainment by what 
name we may. We have no origin for our legislation, only 
as the highest architect finds such wants within himself, and 
the archetypal rule for gratifying his wants in the most effect- 
ual manner ; and precisely as the ox goes to his fodder in 
the shortest way, so he goes to his work in making and peo- 
pling worlds in the most direct manner. Here is no will ; 
no personality ; no pure autonomy. The artist finds himself 
so constituted that he must work in this manner, or the crav- 
ing of his own nature becomes intolerable to himself, and 
the gratifying of this craving is the highest good" 

We attain hereby a mark by which to distinguish the 
diminishing from the undiminishing condition. A sense of 
want, a craving, is the necessary result of a diminishing con- 
dition. Hence the presence of any craving is the distin- 
guishing mark of the finite ; and that plenitude of endow- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 37 

ments which excludes all possible craving or lack, is the 
distinguishing mark of the infinite and absolute Person. In 
this plenitude his infinity and absoluteness consist ; and it is, 
therefore, conditional of them. Upon this plenitude, as con- 
ditional of this Person's perfection, Dr. Hickok speaks fur- 
ther, as follows : — 

" We must find that which shall itself be the reason and 
law for benevolence, and for the sake of which the artist 
shall be put to his beneficent agency above all considerations 
that he finds his nature craving it. It must be that for whose 
sake, happiness, even that which, as kind and benevolent, 
craves on all sides the boon to bless others, itself should be. 
Not sensient nor artistic autonomy, but a pure ethic auton- 
omy, which know& that within itself there is an excellency 
which obliges for the sake of itself. This is never to be 
found, nor anything very analogous to it, in sensient nature 
and a dictate from some generalized experience. It lies 
within the rational spirit, and is law in the heart, as an in- 
ward imperative in its own right, and must there be found. 
This inward witnessing capacitates for self-legislat- 
ing and self-rewarding. It is inward consciousness of a worth 
imperative above want ; an end in itself, and not means to 
another end ; a user of things, but not itself to be used by any- 
thing ; and, on account of its intrinsic excellency, an authori- 
tative determiner for its own behoof of the entire artistic agency 
with all its products, and thus a conscience excusing or accusing. 

" This inward witnessing of the absolute to his own worthi- 
ness, gives the ultimate estimate to nature, which needs and 
can attain to nothing higher, than that it should satisfy this 
worthiness as end ; and thereby in all his works, he fixe*, in 
his own light, upon the subjective archetype, and attains to 
the objective result of that which is befitting his own dignity. 
It is, therefore, in no craving want which must be gratified, 
but from the interest of an inner behest, which should be 
executed for his own worthiness' sake, that ' God has created 
all things, and for his pleasure they are and were created.' " 



88 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

In the light of the foregoing discussion and illustrations, 
the division of conditions into two classes — the one class, 
conditions proper, comprising those which diminish the en- 
dowments of the being upon whom they lie, and are ground 
for a craving or lack ; and the other class, comprising those 
conditions which do not diminish the endowments of the 
being upon whom they lie, and which are, therefore, ground 
for perfect plenitude of endowments, and of self-satisfaction 
on account thereof — is seen to be thoroughly philosophical. 
And let it be here noted, that the very construction, or, if 
the term suit better, perception of this distinction, is a deci- 
sive evidence of the fact, and a direct product of the opera- 
tion of the Pure Reason. If our intellect comprised only 
what the Limitists acknowledge it to be, a Sense and an Un- 
derstanding, not only could no other but diminishing condi- 
tions be thought of, but by no possibility could a hint that 
there were any others flit through the mind. Such a mind, 
being wholly in nature, and conditioned by nature, cannot 
climb up out of nature, and perceive aught there. But those 
conditions which lie upon the infinite Person are supernat- 
ural and spiritual ; and could not be even vaguely guessed 
at, much more examined critically and classified, but by a 
being possessed of a faculty the same in kind with the intel- 
lect in which such spiritual conditions inhere. 

The actual processes which go on in the mind are as 
follows. The Sense, possessing a purely mechanical struct- 
ure, a structure not differing in kind from that of the vege- 
table, — both being alike entirely conditioned by the law of 
cause and effect,— perceives phenomena. The relation of the 
object to the sensorium, or of the image to the sensory, and 
the forms under which the Sense shall receive the impres- 
sion, are fixed. Because the Sense acts compulsorily, in 
fixed mechanical forms, it is, by this very construction, in- 
capable, not only of receiving impressions and examining 
phenomena outside of those forms, but it can never be startled 
with the guess that there is anything else than what is re- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 39 

ceived therein. For instance : A man born blind, though 
he can have no possible notion of what light is, knows that 
light is, from the testimony of those who can see. But if a 
race of men born blind should be found, who had never had 
any communication with men who could see, it is notorious 
that they could have no possible notion even that light was. 
A suspicion of its existence could never cross their minds. 
This position is strengthened and established beyond contro- 
versy, by the failure of the mind in its efforts to construct 
an entirely new sense. Every attempt only intensifies our 
appreciation of the futility of the effort. From fragments 
of the five senses we might, perhaps, construct a patchwork 
sixth ; but the mind makes no presentation to itself of a new 
sense. The reason is, that, to do so, the Sense, as mental 
faculty, must transcend the very conditions of its existence. 
It is precisely with the Understanding as w r ith the lower fac- 
ulty. It cannot transcend its limits. It can add no item to 
the sum of human knowledge, except as it deduces it from a 
presentation by the Sense. Hence its conditions correspond 
to those in its associate faculty. 

It is manifest, then, that a being with only these faculties 
may construct a system, but can never develop a science. 
It can arrange, classify, by such standards as its fancy may 
select, the phenomena in nature ; but this must be in accord- 
ance with some sensuous form. No law can be seen, by which 
it ought to be so, and not otherwise. Such classification must 
always be determined by the number of stamens in the flower, 
for instance ; and that standard, though arbitrary, will be as 
good as any other, unless there comes a higher faculty which, 
overlooking all nature, perceives the a priori law working in 
nature, which gives the ultimate ground for an exhaustive 
development of a science which in its idea cannot be im- 
proved. It is manifest, further, that those conditions, to which 
we have applied the epithet proper, lie upon the two facul- 
ties we have been considering. In this we agree with the 
Limitists. 



40 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

It now behooves to present the fact that the faculty whose 
existence was proved in the earlier part of our work, is com- 
petent to overlook, and so comprehend nature, and all the 
conditions of nature, and thereby assign to said conditions 
their true and inferior place, while it soars out of nature, and 
intuits those a 'priori laws which, though the conditions of, 
are wholly unconditioned by nature ; but which are both the 
conditions of and conditioned by the supernatural ; and this 
in an entirely different sense from the other. This is the 
province of the Pure Reason. Standing on some lofty peak, 
above all clouds of sense, under the full blaze of eternal 
truth, the soul sees all nature spread like a vast map before 
her searching eye, sharply observes, and appreciates all the 
conditions of nature ; and then, while holding it full in the 
field of her vision, with equal fulness perceives that other 
land, the spiritual plains of the supernatural, sees them too 
in all their conditionings ; and sees, with a clearness of vision 
never approximated by the earthly eye, the fact that these 
supernatural conditions are no deprivation which awaken a 
want, but that they inhere and cohere, as final ground for 
absolute plenitude of endowments and fulness of bliss, in 
the Self-existent Person. 

It will be objected to the position now attained, that it in- 
volves the doctrine that the Pure Reason in the finite spirit- 
ual person is on a par with the Universal Genius in the infi- 
nite spiritual Person. The objection is fallacious, because 
based upon the assumption that likeness in mode of action 
involves entire similarity. The mode of action in the finite 
Pure Reason is precisely similar to that of the Universal 
Genius ; the objects perceived by both are the same, they 
are seen in the same light, and so are in accord ; but the 
range of the finite is one, and the range of the infinite is 
another ; and so diverse also are the circumstances attending 
the act of seeing. The range of the finite Reason is, always 
must be, partial : the range of the infinite Reason is, always 
must be, exhaustive (not infinite). In circumstances, the finite 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 41 

Reason is created dependent for existence, must begin in a 
germ in which it is inactive, and must be developed by asso- 
ciation with nature, and under forms of nature ; and can 
never, by any possibility of growth, attain to that perfectness 
in which it shall be satisfied, or to a point in development 
from which it can continue its advance as pure spirit. It 
always must be spirit in a body ; even though that be a spir- 
itual body. The infinite Reason is self-existent, and therefore 
independent ; and is, and always must be, in the absolute 
possession of all possible knowledge, and so cannot grow. 
Hence, while the infinite and finite reasons see the same ob- 
ject in the same light, and therefore alike, the difference in 
range, and the difference in circumstance, must forever con- 
stitute them dissimilar. The exact likeness of sight just 
noticed is the necessary a priori ground upon which a moral 
government is possible. 

In thus declaring the basis upon which the above distinc- 
tion between the two classes of conditions rests, we have been 
led to distinguish more clearly between the faculties of the 
mind, and especially to observe how the Pure Reason enables 
us thereby to solve the problems she has raised. In this 
radical distinction lies the rational ground for the explication 
of all the problems which the Limitists raise. It also ap- 
pears that the terms must, possible, and the like, being used 
to express no idea of restraint, as coming from without upon 
the infinite Person, or of lack or craving, as subsisting within 
him, are properly employed in expressing the fact that his 
Self, as a priori ground for his activity, is, though the only, 
yet a real, positive, and irremovable limit, condition, and law 
of his action. Of two possible ends he may freely choose 
either. Of all possible modes of action he may choose one ; 
but the constituting laws of his Self he cannot, and the moral 
laws of his Self he will not, violate. 

That point has now been reached at which this branch of 
the discussion in hand may be closed. The final base from 
which to conduct an examination of the questions respecting 



42 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

absoluteness and infinity has been attained. In the progress 
to this consummation it was found that a radical psychologi- 
cal error lay at the root of the philosophy taught by the Lim- 
itists. Their theory was seen to be partial, and essentially 
defective. Qualities which they do not recognize were found 
to belong to certain mental affirmations. Four classes of 
these affirmations or ideas were named and illustrated ; and 
by them the fact of the Reason was established. Then its 
mode of activity and its functions were stated ; and finally 
the great truth which solves the problem of the ages was, by 
this faculty, attained and stated. It became evident that the 
final cause of the Universe must be found without the Uni- 
verse ; and it was then seen that 

That spiritual Person who is self-existent, absolute, and 
infinite, is the Ultimate Ground, the Final Cause, of the 
Universe. 

Definitions of the terms absolute and infinite suitable to 
such a position were then given, with a few concluding re- 
flections. From the result thus secured the way is prepared 
for an examination of the general principles and their spe- 
cial applications which the Limitists maintain, and this will 
occupy our future pages. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 43 



PART II. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION 
OF THE LIMITISTS, AND OF CERTAIN GENERAL COROL- 
LARIES UNDER IT. 

It has been attempted in the former pages to find a valid 
and final basis of truth, one which would satisfy the crav- 
ings of the human soul, and afford it a sure rest. In the 
fact that God made man in his own image, and that thus 
there is, to a certain extent, a community of faculties, a com- 
munity of knowledge, a community of obligations, and a 
community of interests, have we found such a basis. We 
have hereby learned that a part of man's knowledge is neces- 
sary and final ; in other words, that he can know the truth, 
and be sure that his knowledge is correct. If the proofs 
which have been offered of the fact of the Pure Reason, and 
the statements which have been made of the mode of its ac- 
tivity and of its functions, and, further, of the problem of 
the Universe, and the true method for solving it, shall have 
been satisfactory to the reader, he will now be ready to con- 
sider the analysis of Sir William Hamilton's fundamental 
proposition, which was promised on an early page. We 
there gave, it was thought, sufficiently full extracts for a fair 
presentation of his theory, and followed them with a candid 
epitome. In recurring to the subject now, and for the pur- 
pose named, we are constrained at the outset to make an 
acknowledgment. 

It would be simple folly, a childish egotism, to pass by in 
silence the masterly article on this subject in the " North 
American Keview" for October, 1864, and after it to pre- 



44 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

tend to offer anything new. Whatever the author might 
have wrought out in his own mental workshop, — and his 
work was far less able than what is there given, — that ar- 
ticle has left nothing to be said. He has therefore been 
tempted to one of two courses : either to transfer it to these 
pages, or pass by the subject entirely. Either course may, 
perhaps, be better than the one finally chosen ; which is, 
while pursuing the order of his own thought, to add a few 
short extracts therefrom. One possibility encourages him in 
this, which is, that some persons may see this volume, who 
have no access to the Review, and to whom, therefore, these 
pages will be valuable. To save needless repetition, this 
discussion will presuppose that the reader has turned back 
and perused the extracts and epitome above alluded to. 

Upon the very threshold of Sir William Hamilton's state- 
ment, one is met by a logical faux pas which is truly amaz- 
ing. Immediately after the assertion that "the mind can 
know only the limited and the conditionally limited" and in 
the very sentence in which he denies the possibility of a 
knowledge of the Infinite and Absolute, he proceeds to define 
those words in definite and known terms ! The Infinite he 
defines as " the unconditionally unlimited," and the Absolute 
as " the unconditionally limited." Or, to save him, will one say 
that the defining terms are unknown ? So much the worse, 
then ! " The Infinite " an unknown term, may be repre- 
sented by x ; and the unconditionally unlimited, a compound 
unknown term, by ab. Now, who has the right to say, either 
in mathematics or metaphysics, in any philosophy, that 
x = ab? Yet such dicta are the basis of " The Philosophy 
of the Unconditioned." But, one of two suppositions is possi- 
ble. Either the terms infinite and absolute are known terms 
and definable, or they are unknown terms and undefinable. 
Yet, Hamilton says, they are unknown and definable. Which 
does he mean ? If he is held to the former, they are un- 
known ; then all else that he has written about them are 
batches of meaningless words. If he is held to the latter, 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 45 

they are definable ; then are they known, and his system is 
denied in the assertion of it. Since his words are so contra- 
dictory, he must be judged by his deeds ; and in these he al- 
ways assumes that we have a positive knowledge of the infi- 
nite and absolute, else he would not have argued the matter ; 
for there can be no argument about nothing. Our analysis 
of his theory, then, must be conducted upon this hypothesis. 

Turn back for a moment to the page upon which his theory 
is quoted, and read the last sentence. Is his utterance a 
"principle," or is it a judgment? Is it an axiom, or is it a 
guess. The logician asserts that we know only the condi- 
tioned, and yet bases his assertion upon " the principles," &c. 
What is a principle, and how is it known ? If it is an axiom, 
then he has denied his own philosophy in the very sentence 
in which he uttered it. And this, we have no hesitation in 
saying, is just what he did. He blindly assumed certain 
" fundamental laws of thought," — to quote another of his 
phrases, — to establish the impotence of the mind to know 
those laws as fundamental. Again, if his philosophy is valid, 
the words "must," "necessary," and the like, are entirely 
out of place ; for they are unconditional. In the conditioned 
there is, can be 5 no must, no necessity. 

From these excursions about the principle let us now re- 
turn to the principle itself. It may be stated concisely thus : 
There are two extremes, — " the Absolute " and the " Infi- 
nite." These include all being. They are contradictories, 
that is, one must be, to the exclusion of the other. But the 
mind can " conceive " of neither. What, then, is the logical 
conclusion ? That the mind cannot conceive of anything. 
What is his conclusion ? That the mind can conceive of 
something between the infinite and the absolute, which is 
neither the one nor the other, but a tertium quid — the con- 
ditioned. Where did this tertium quid come from, when he 
had already comprehended everything in the two extremes ? 
If there is a mean, the conditioned, and the two extremes, 
then " excluded middle " has nothing to do with the matter 
at all. 



46 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

To avoid the inevitable conclusion of his logic as just 
stated, Hamilton erected the subterfuge of mental imbecility. 
To deny any knowledge to man, was to expose himself to 
ridicule. He, therefore, and his followers after him, drew a 
line in the domain of knowledge, and assigned to the hither 
side of it all knowledge that can come through generaliza- 
tions in the Understanding ; and then asserted that the con- 
tradictions which appeared in the mind, when one examined 
those questions which lie on the further side of that line, re- 
sulted from the impotency of the mind to comprehend the 
questions themselves. This was, is, their psychology. How 
satisfactory it may be to Man, a hundred years, perhaps, will 
show. But strike out the last assertion, and write, Both are 
cognizable ; and then let us proceed with our reasoning. 
The essayist in the North American presents the theory 
under four heads, as follows : — 

" 1. The Infinite and Absolute as defined, are contradic- 
tory and exclusive of each other ; yet, one must be true. 

" 2. Neither of them can be conceived as possible. 

" 3. Each is inconceivable ; and the inconceivability of 
each is referable to the same cause, namely, mental imbe- 
cility. 

P 4. As opposite extremes, they include everything con- 
ceivable between them." 

The first and fourth points require our especial attention. 

1. Let us particularly mark, then, that it is as defined^ 
that the terms are " contradictory." The question, therefore, 
turns upon the definitions. Undoubtedly the definitions are 
erroneous ; but in order to see wherein, the following general 
reflections may be made : — 

The terms infinite and absolute, as used by philosophers, 
have two distinct applications : one to Space and Time, and 
one to God. Such definitions as are suitable to the latter 
application, and self-consistent, have already been given. 
Though reluctant to admit into a philosophical treatise a term 
bearing two distinct meanings, we shall waive for a little our 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 47 

scruples, — though choosing, for ourselves, to use the equiv- 
alent rather than the term. 

Such definitions are needed, then, as that absolute Space 
and Time shall not be contradictory to infinite Space and 
Time. Let us first observe Hamilton's theory. According 
to it, Space, for instance, is either unconditional illimitation, 
or it is unconditional limitation ; in other words, it is illimit- 
able, or it is a limited whole. The first part of the assertion 
is true. That Space is illimitable, is unquestionably a self- 
evident truth. Any one who candidly considers the subject 
will see not only that the mind cannot assign limits to Space, 
but that the attempt is an absurdity just alike in kind with 
the attempt to think two and two five. The last part is a 
psychological blunder, has no pertinence to the question, and 
is not what Hamilton was groping for. He was searching 
for the truth, that there is no absolute unit in Space. A lim- 
ited whole has nothing to do with the matter in hand — »- abso- 
luteness — at all. The illimitability of Space, which has 
just been established as an axiom, precludes this. What, 
then, is the opposite pole of thought ? We have just declared 
it. There is no absolute unit of Space ; or, in other words, 
all division is in Space, but Space is indivisible. This, also, 
is an axiom, is self-evident. We attain, then, two poles of 
thought, and definitions of the two terms given, which are 
exhaustive and consistent. 

u Space is illimitable. 
Space is indivisible." 

The one is the infinity of Space, the other is the absolute- 
ness of Space. The fact, then, is, all limitation is in Space, 
and all division is in Space ; but Space is neither limited or 
divided. One of the logician's extremes is seen, then, to 
have no foundation in fact ; and that which is found to be 
true is also found to be consistent with, nay, essential to, 
what should have been the other. 

Having hitherto expressed a decided protest against any 
attempt to find out God through the forms of Space and 



48 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

Time, a repetition will not be needed here. God is only to 
be sought for, found, and studied, by such methods as are 
suitable to the supreme spiritual Person. Hence all the at- 
tempts of the Limitists to reason from spatial and temporal 
difficulties over to those questions which belong to God, are 
simply absurd. The questions respecting Space and Time 
are to be discussed by themselves. And the questions re- 
specting God are to be discussed by themselves. He who 
tries to reason from the one to the other is not less absurd 
than he who should try to reason from a farm to the multi- 
plication table. 

In Sir William Hamilton's behalf it should be stated, that 
there is just a modicum of truth underlying his theory, — 
just enough to give it a degree of plausibility. The Sense, 
as faculty for the perception of physical objects, or their im- 
ages, and the Understanding as discursive faculty for passing 
over and forming judgments upon the materials gathered by 
the Sense, lie under the shadow of a law very like the one he 
stated, The Sense was made incapable of perceiving an ul- 
timate atom or of comprehending the universe. From the 
fact that the Sense never has perceived these objects, the 
Understanding concludes that it never will. Only by the in- 
sight and oversight of that higher faculty, the Pure Reason, 
do we come to know that it never can. It was because those 
lower faculties are thus walled in by the conditions of Space 
and Time, and are unable to perceive or conceive anything 
out of those conditions, and because, in considering them, he 
failed to see the other mental powers, that Sir William Ham- 
ilton constructed his Philosophy of the Unconditioned. 

2. Neither of them can be conceived as possible. 

Literally, this is true. The word "conceive" applies 
strictly to the work of the Understanding ; and that faculty 
can never have any notion of the Infinite or Absolute. But, 
assuming that " conceive " is a general term for cognize, the 
conclusion developed just above is inevitable. If all being 
is in one or the other, and neither can be known, nothing can 
be known. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 49 

3. They cannot be known, because of mental imbecility. 
If man can know nothing because of mental imbecility, why 
suppose that he has a mental faculty at all ? Why not 
enounce, as the fundamental principle of one's theory, the 
assertion, All men are idiots ? This would be logically con- 
sistent. The truth is, the logician was in a dilemma. He 
must confess that men know something. By a false psy- 
chology he had ruled the Reason out of the mind, and so 
had left himself no faculty by which to form any notion of 
absoluteness and infinity ; and yet they would thrust them- 
selves before him, and demand an explanation. Hence, he 
constructed a subterfuge. He would have been more con- 
sistent if he had said, There is no absolute and infinite. 
The conditioned is the whole of existence ; and this the mind 
knows. 

" 4. As opposite extremes, they include everything con- 
ceivable between them." 

What the essayist in the North American says upon this 
point is so apt, and so accords with our own previous reflec- 
tions, that we will not forbear making an extract. " The 
last of the four theses will best be re -stated in Hamilton's 
own words ; the italics are his. ' The conditioned is the 
mean between two extremes — two inconditionates, exclusive 
of each other, neither of which can be conceived as possible, 
but of which, on the principles of contradiction and excluded 
middle, one must be admitted as necessary. 9 This sentence 
excites unmixed wonder. To mention in the same breath the 
law of excluded middle, and two contradictions with a mean 
between them, requires a hardihood unparalleled in the his- 
tory of philosophy, except by Hegel. If the two contradic- 
tory extremes are themselves incogitable, yet include a cogi- 
table mean, why insist upon the necessity of accepting either 
extreme ? This necessity of accepting one of two contra- 
dictories is wholly based upon the supposed impossibility of 
a mean ; if the mean exists, that may be true, and both the 
contradictories false. But if a mean between the two con- 
4 



50 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

tradictories be both impossible and absurd, (and we have 
hitherto so interpreted the law of excluded middle,) Hamil- 
ton's conditioned entirely vanishes." 

Upon a system which, in whatever aspect one looks at it, 
is found to be but a bundle of contradictions and absurdities, 
further criticism would appear to be unnecessary. 

Having, impliedly at least, accepted as true Sir William 
Hamilton's psychological error, — the rejection of the Reason 
as the intellectual faculty of the spiritual person, — and hav- 
ing, with him, used the terms limit, condition, and the like, 
in such significations as are pertinent to the Sense and Under- 
standing only, the Limitists proceed to present in a paradox- 
ical light many questions which arise concerning " the Infi- 
nite." They take the ground that, to our view, he can be 
neither person, nor intellect, nor consciousness ; for each of 
these implies limitation ; and yet that it is impossible for us 
to know aught of him, except as such. Then having, as 
they think, completely confused the mind, they draw hence 
new support for their conclusion, that we can attain to no 
satisfactory knowledge on the subject. The following ex- 
tracts selected from many will show this. 

" Now, in the first place, the very conception of Conscious- 
ness, in whatever mode it may be manifested, necessarily im- 
plies distinction between one object and another. To be 
conscious, we must be conscious of something ; and that 
something can only be known as that which it is, by being 
distinguished from that which it is not. But distinction is 
necessarily a limitation ; for, if one object is to be distin- 
guished from another, it must possess some form of existence 
which the other has not, or it must not possess some form 
w 7 hich the other has. But it is obvious that the Infinite can- 
not be distinguished, as such, from the Finite, by the absence 
of any quality which the Finite possesses ; for such absence 
would be a limitation. Nor yet can it be distinguished by 
the presence of an attribute which the Finite has not ; for 
as no finite part can be a constituent of an infinite whole, 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 51 

this differential characteristic must itself be infinite ; and 
must at the same time have nothing in common with the 
finite 

u That a man can be conscious of the Infinite, is thus a sup- 
position which, in the very terms in which it is expressed, 
annihilates itself. Consciousness is essentially a limitation ; 
for it is the determination of the mind to one actual out of 
many possible modifications. But the Infinite, if it is con- 
ceived at all, must be conceived as potentially everything, 
and actually nothing ; for if there is anything in general 
which it cannot become, it is thereby limited ; and if there is 
anything in particular which it actually is, it is thereby ex- 
cluded from being any other thing. But again, it must also 
be conceived as actually everything, and potentially nothing ; 
for an unrealized potentiality is likewise a limitation. If 
the infinite can be that which it is not, it is by that very 
possibility marked out as incomplete, and capable of a higher 
perfection. If it is actually everything, it possesses no 
characteristic feature by which it can be distinguished from 
anything else, and discerned as an object of consciousness. . . 

" Rationalism is thus only consistent with itself when it 
refuses to attribute consciousness to God. Consciousness, in 
the only form in which we can conceive it, implies limitation 
and change, — the perception of one object out of many, and 
a comparison of that object with others. To be always con- 
scious of the same object, is, humanly speaking, not to be 
conscious at all ; and, beyond its human manifestation, we 
can have no conception of what consciousness is." — Limits 
of Religious Thought, pp. 93-95. 

" As the conditionally limited (which we may briefly call 
the conditioned) is thus the only possible object of knowledge 
and of positive thought — thought necessarily supposes con- 
ditions. To think is to condition ; and conditional limitation 
is the fundamental law of the possibility of thought 

" Thought cannot transcend consciousness ; consciousness 
is only possible under the antithesis of a subject and object 



52 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

of thought ; known only in correlation, and mutually limiting 
each other ; while, independently of this, all that we know 
either of subject or object, either of mind or matter, is only 
a knowledge in each of the particular, of the plural, of the 
different, of the modified, of the phenomenal. We admit 
that the consequence of this doctrine is — that philosophy, if 
viewed as more than a science of the conditioned, is impos- 
sible. Departing from the particular, we admit that we can 
never, in our highest generalizations, rise above the finite ; 
that our knowledge, whether of mind or matter, can be noth- 
ing more than a knowledge of the relative manifestations of 
an existence, which in itself it is our highest wisdom to recog- 
nize as beyond the reach of philosophy." 

" In all this, so far as human intelligence is concerned, we 
cordially agree ; for a more complete admission could not be 
imagined, not only that a knowledge, and even a notion, of 
the absolute is impossible for man, but that we are unable 
to conceive the possibility of such a knowledge even in the 
Deity himself, without contradicting our human conceptions 
of the possibility of intelligence itself." — Sir William Ham- 
ilton's Essays, pp. 21, 22, 38. 

" The various mental attributes which we ascribe to God — 
Benevolence, Holiness, Justice, Wisdom, for example — can 
be conceived by us only as existing in a benevolent and holy 
and just and wise Being, who is not identical with any one 
of his attributes, but the common subject of them all ; in one 
word, a Person, But Personality, as we conceive it, is 
essentially a limitation and relation. Our own personality 
is presented to us as relative and limited ; and it is from that 
presentation that all our representative notions of personality 
are derived. Personality is presented to us as a relation 
between the conscious self and the various modes of his con- 
sciousness. There is no personality in abstract thought with- 
out a thinker : there is no thinker unless he exercises some 
mode of thought. Personality is also a limitation ; for the 
thought and the thinker are distinguished from and limit each 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 53 

other ; and the various modes of thought are distinguished 

each from each by limitation likewise " — Limits of 

Religious Thought, p. 102. 

" Personality, with all its limitations, though far from exhib- 
iting the absolute nature of God as He is, is yet truer, grander, 
more elevating, more religious, than those barren, vague, 
meaningless abstractions in which men babble about nothing 
under the name of the Infinite and Personal conscious exist- 
ence, limited though it be, is yet the noblest of all existence 

of which man can dream It is by consciousness 

alone that we know that God exists, or that we are able to 
offer Him any service. It is only by conceiving Him as a 
Conscious Being, that we can stand in any religious relation 
to Him at all ; that we can form such a representation of 
Him as is demanded by our spiritual wants, insufficient though 
it be to satisfy our intellectual curiosity." — Limits of Relig- 
ious Thought, p. 104. 

The conclusions of these writers upon this whole topic are 
as follows : — 

" The mind is not represented as conceiving two proposi- 
tions subversive of each other as equally possible ; but only 
as unable to understand as possible two extremes ; one of 
which, however, on the ground of their mutual repugnance, 
it is compelled to recognize as true And by a won- 
derful revelation we are thus, in the very consciousness of 
our inability to conceive aught above the relative and finite, 
inspired with a belief in the existence of something uncon- 
ditioned beyond the sphere of all comprehensible reality." — 
Sir William Hamilton's Essays, p. 22. 

" To sum up briefly this portion of my argument. The 
conception of the Absolute and Infinite, from whatever side 
we view it, appears encompassed with contradictions. There 
is a contradiction in supposing such an object to exist, whether 
alone or in conjunction with others ; and there is a contra- 
diction in supposing it not to exist. There is a contradiction 
m conceiving it as one ; and there is a contradiction in con- 



54 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

ceiving it as many. There is a contradiction in conceiving 
it as personal ; and there is a contradiction in conceiving it 
as impersonal. It cannot, without contradiction, be repre- 
sented as active ; nor, without equal contradiction, be repre- 
sented as inactive. It cannot be conceived as the sum of 
all existence ; nor yet can it be conceived as a part only of 
that sum." — Limits of Religious Thought, pp. 84, 85. 

We have quoted thus largely, preferring that the Limitists 
should speak for themselves. Their doctrine, as taught, not 
simply in these passages, but throughout their writings, may 
be briefly summed up as follows. 

The human mind, whenever it attempts to investigate the 
profoundest subjects which come before it, and which it is 
goaded to examine, finds itself in an inextricable maze of 
contradictions ; and, after vainly struggling for a while to get 
out, becomes nonplussed, confused, confounded, dazed ; and, 
falling down helpless and effortless in the maze, and with 
devout humility acknowledging its impotence, it finds that 
the " highest reason ' 7 is to pass beyond the sphere and out 
of the light of reason, into the sphere of a superrational and 
therefore dark, and therefore blind faith. 

But it is to be stated, and here we strike to the centre of 
the errors of the Limitists, that a perception and confession 
of mental impotence is not the logical deduction from their 
premises. Lustrous as may be their names in logic, — and 
Sir William Hamilton is esteemed a sun in the logical firma- 
ment, — no one of them ever saw, or else dared to acknowl- 
edge, the logical sequence from their principles. They have 
climbed upon the dizzy heights of thought, and out on their 
verge ; and there they stand, hesitating and shivering, like 
naked men on Alpine precipices, with no eagle wings to 
spread and soar away towards the Eternal Truth ; and not 
daring to take the awful plunge before them. Behold the 
gulf from which they shrink. Mr. Mansel says : — 

" It is our duty, then, to think of God as personal ; and it 
is our duty to believe that He is infinite. It is true that we 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 55 

cannot reconcile these two representations with each other, 
as our conception of personality involves attributes appar- 
ently contradictory to the notion of infinity. But it does 
not follow that this contradiction exists anywhere but in our 
own minds : it does not follow that it implies any impossi- 
bility in the absolute nature of God. The apparent contra- 
diction, in this case, as in those previously noticed, is the 
necessary consequence of an attempt on the part of the 
human thinker to transcend the boundaries of his own con- 
sciousness. It proves that there are limits to man's power of 
thought ; and it proves no more." — Limits of Religious 
Thought, p. 106. 

Or, to put it in sharp and accurate, plain and unmistaka- 
ble English. " It is our duty to think of God as personal," 
when to think of Him as personal is to think a lie ; " to be- 
lieve that He is infinite," when so to believe is to believe 
the lie already thought ; and when to believe a lie is to incur 
the penalty decreed by the Bible — God's book — upon 
all who believe lies. And this is the religious teaching of 
a professed Christian minister in one of the first Universities 
in the world. Not that Mr. Mansel meant to teach this. 
By no means. But it logically follows from his premises. 
In his philosophy the mind instinctively, necessarily, and 
with equal authority in each case, asserts 

That there must be an infinite Being ; 

That that Being must be Self-conscious, 

Must be unlimited ; and that 

Consciousness is a limitation. 
These assertions are contradictory and self-destructive. What 
follows then ? That the mind is impotent ? No ! It follows 
that the mind is a deceiver ! We learn again the lesson we 
have learned before. It is not weakness, it is falsehood : 
it is not want of capacity, it is want of integrity that is proved 
by this contradiction. Man is worse than a hopeless, mental 
imbecile, he is a hopeless, mental cheat. 

But is the result true ? How can it be, when with all its 



56 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

might the mind revolts from it, as nature does from a 
vacuum ? True that the human mind is an incorrigible falsi- 
fier ? With the indignation of outraged honesty, man's soul 
rejects the insulting aspersion, and reasserts its own integrity 
and authority. Ages of controversy have failed to obliterate 
or cry down the spontaneous utterance of the soul, " I have 
within myself the ultimate standard of truth." 

It now devolves to account for the aberrations of the Lim- 
itists. The ground of all their difficulties is simple and 
plain. While denying to the human mind the faculty of 
the Pure Reason, they have, by the (to them) undistin- 
guished use of that faculty, raised questions which the Un- 
derstanding by no possibility could raise, which the Reason 
alone is capable of presenting, and which that Reason alone 
can solve ; and have attempted to solve them solely by the 
assistance, and in the forms of, the Sense and the Under- 
standing. Their problems belong to a spiritual person ; and 
they attempt to solve them by the inferior modes of an ani- 
mal nature. Better, by far, could they see with their ears. 
All their processes are developed on the vicious assumption, 
that the highest form of knowledge possible to the human 
mind is a generalization in the Understanding, upon facts 
given in the Sense : a form of knowledge which is always 
one, whether the substance be distinguished in the form, be 
a peach, as diverse from an apple ; or a star, as one among 
a million. The meagreness and utter insufficiency of this 
doctrine, to account for all the phenomena of the human 
mind, we have heretofore shown ; and shall therefore need 
only now to distinguish certain special phases of their fun- 
damental error. 

As heretofore, there will be continual occasion to note 
how the doctrine of the Limitists, that the Understanding 
is man's highest faculty of knowledge, and the logical se- 
quences therefrom respecting the laws of thought and con- 
sciousness vitiate their whole system. One of their most 
important errors is thus expressed : — "To be conscious, we 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 57 

must be conscious of something ; and that something can 
only be known as that which it is, by being distinguished 
from that which it is not." " Thought cannot transcend 
consciousness ; consciousness is only possible under the anti- 
thesis of subject and object of thought known only in cor- 
relation, and mutually limiting each other ; while, indepen- 
dently of this, all that we know either of subject or object, 
either of mind or matter, is only a knowledge in each of the 
particular, of the plural, of the different, of the modified, of 
the phenomenal." In other words, our highest possible form 
of knowledge is that by which we examine the peach, dis- 
tinguish its qualities among themselves, and discriminate 
between them and the qualities of the apple. And Sir Wil- 
liam Hamilton fairly and truly acknowledges that, as a 
consequence, science, except as a system of objects of sense, 
is impossible. 

The fact is, as has been made already sufficiently apparent, 
that the diagnosis by the Limitists of the constitution of 
the mind is erroneous. Their dictum, that all knowledge 
must be attained through " relation, plurality, and differ- 
ence," is not true. There is a kind of knowledge which 
we obtain by a direct and immediate sight ; and that, too, 
under such conditions as are no limitation upon the object 
thought. For instance, the mind, by a direct intuition, af- 
firms, *' Malice is criminal." It also affirms that this is an 
eternal, immutable, universal law, conditional for all possi- 
bility of moral beings. This direct and immediate sight, and 
the consciousness attending it, are full of that one object, 
and so are occupied only with it ; and it does not come 
under any forms of relation, plurality, and difference. So is 
it with all a priori laws. The mode of the pure reason is 
thus seen to be the direct opposite of that of the Understand- 
ing and the Sense. 

Intimately connected with the foregoing is a question whose 
importance cannot be overstated. It is one which involves 
the very possibility of God's existence as a self-conscious 



58 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

person. To present it, we recur again to the extracts made 
just above from Sir William Hamilton. " Consciousness is 
only possible under the antithesis of a subject and object of 
thought, known only in correlation, and mutually limiting 
each other." Subsequently, he makes the acknowledgment 
as logically following from this : " that we are unable to 
conceive the possibility of such knowledge," i. e. of the abso- 
lute, " even in the Deity himself." That is, God can be 
believed to be self-conscious only on the ground that the 
human intellect is a cheat. The theory which underlies this 
assertion of the logician — a theory not peculiar to the Lim- 
itists, but which has, perhaps, been hitherto universally main- 
tained by philosophers — may be concisely stated thus. In 
every correlation of subject and object, — in every instance 
where they are to be contrasted, — the subject must be one, 
and the object must be another and different. Hamilton, in 
another place, utters it thus : " Look back for a moment into 
yourselves, and you will find, that what constitutes intelli- 
gence in our feeble consciousness, is, that there are there 
several terms, of which the one perceives the other, of which 
the other is perceived by the first ; in this consists self- 
knowledge," &c. Mark the " several terms," and that the 
one can only see the other, never itself. 

This position is both a logical and psychological error. 
It is a logical error because it assumes, without argument, 
that there is involved in the terms subject and object such a 
logical contradiction and contradistinction that the subject 
cannot be object to itself. This assumption is groundless. 
As a matter of fact, it is generally true that, so far as man is 
concerned, the subject is one, and the object another and dif- 
ferent. But this by no means proves that it is always so ; it 
only raises the presumption that such may be the case. And 
when one comes to examine the question in itself, there is 
absolutely no logical ground for the assumption. It is found 
to be a question upon which no decision from logical consid- 
erations can have any validity, because it is purely psycho- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 59 

logical, and can only be decided by evidence upon a matter 
of fact. Furthermore, it is a psychological error, because 
a careful examination shows that, in some instances, the op- 
posite is the fact ; that, in certain experiences, the subject 
and object are identical. 

This fact that the subject and object are often identical in 
the searching eye of human reason, and always so under the 
eye of Universal Genius, is of too vast scope and too vital 
importance to be passed with a mere allusion. It seems 
amazing that a truth which, the instant it is stated, solves a 
thousand difficulties which philosophy has raised, should 
never yet have been affirmed by any of the great spiritual- 
eyed thinkers, and that it should have found utterance, only 
to be denied, by the pen of the Limitists. A word of per- 
sonal reminiscence may be allowed here. The writer came 
to see this truth during a process of thought, having for its 
object the solution of the problem, How can the infinite Per- 
son be self-comprehending, and still infinite ? While consid- 
ering this, and without ever having received a hint from any 
source that the possibility of such a problem had dawned on 
a human mind before, there blazed upon him suddenly, like a 
heaven full of light, this, which appeared the incomparably 
profounder question : How can any soul, not God only, but 
any soul, be a self-examiner ? Why don't the Limitists en- 
tertain and explain this ? It was only years after that he 
met the negative statement in Herbert Spencer's book. The 
difficulty is, that the Limitists have represented to their 
minds the mode of the seeing of the Reason, by a sensuous 
image, as the eye ; and because the eye cannot see itself, 
have concluded that the Reason cannot see itself. It is al- 
ways dangerous to argue from an illustration ; and, in this 
instance, it has been fatal. If man was only an animal 
nature, and so only a receiver of impressions, with a capacity 
to generalize from the impressions received, the doctrine of 
the Limitists would be true. But once establish that man is 
also a spiritual person, with a reason, which sees truth by im- 



60 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

mediate intuition, and their whole teaching becomes worth- 
less. The Reason is not receptivity merely, or mainly ; it is 
originator. In its own light it gives to itself a priori truth, 
and itself as seeing that truth ; and so the subject and ob- 
ject are identical. This is one of the differentiating quali- 
ties of the spiritual person. 

Our position may be more accurately stated and more 
amply illustrated and sustained as follows : 

Sometimes, in the created spiritual person, and always in 
the self -existent, the absolute and infinite spiritual Person, the 
subject and object are identical. 

1. Sometimes in the created spiritual person, the subject 
and object are identical. The question is a question of fact. 
In illustrating the fact, it will be proved. When a man 
looks at his hands, he sees they are instruments for his use. 
When he considers his physical sense, he still perceives it to 
be instrument for his use. In all his conclusions, judgments, 
he still finds, not himself, but his instrument. Even in the 
Pure Reason he finds only his faculty ; though it be the 
highest possible to intellect. Yet still he searches, searches 
for the Iam\ which claims, and holds, and uses, the facul- 
ties and capacities. There is a phrase universally familiar 
to American Christians, a fruit of New England Theology, 
which leads us directly to the goal we seek. It is the phrase, 
" self-examination." In all thorough, religious self-examina- 
tion the subject and object are identical. In the ordinary 
labors and experiences of life, man says, " I can do this or 
that ; " and he therein considers only his aptitudes and capa- 
bilities. But in this last, this profoundest act, the assertion 
is not, " I can do this or that." It is, " I am this or that." 
The person stands unveiled before itself, in the awful sanc- 
tuary of God's presence. The decision to be made is not 
upon the use of one faculty or another. It is upon the end 
for which all labor shall be performed. The character of 
the person is under consideration, and is to be determined. 
The selfhood, with all its wondrous mysteries, is at once 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 61 

subject and object. The I am in man, alike in kind to that 
most impenetrable mystery, the eternal I AM of " the ever- 
lasting Father," is now stirred to consider its most solemn 
duty. How shall the finite I am accord itself to the pure 
purpose of the infinite I AM ? It may be, possibly is, that 
some persons have never been conscious of this experience. 
To some, from a natural inaptitude, and to others, from a 
perverse disinclination, it may never come. Some have so 
little gift of introspection, that their inner experiences are 
never observed and analyzed. Their conduct may be beau- 
tiful, but they never know it. Their impressions ever come 
from without. Another class of persons shun such an expe- 
rience as Balshazzar would have shunned, if he could, the 
handwriting on the wall. Their whole souls are absorbed in 
the pursuit of earthly things. They are intoxicated with 
sensuous gratification. The fore-thrown shadow of the com- 
ing thought of self-examination awakens within them a vague 
instinctive dread ; and they shudder, turn away, and by 
every effort avoid it. Sometimes they succeed ; and through 
the gates of death rush headlong into the spirit-land, only to 
be tortured forever there with the experience they so suc- 
cessfully eluded here. For the many thousands, who know 
by experience what a calm, candid, searching, self-examina- 
tion is, now that their attention has been drawn to its full 
psychological import, no further word is necessary. They 
know that in that supreme insight there was seen and 
known, at one and the same instant, in a spontaneous and 
simultaneous action of the soul, the seer and the seen as 
one, as identical. And this experience is so wide-spread, 
that the wonder is that it has not heretofore been assigned its 
suitable place in philosophy. 

2. Always in the self-existent, the absolute and infinite, 
spiritual Person, the subject and object are identical. This 
question, though one of fact, cannot be determined by us, by 
our experience ; it must be shown to follow logically from 
certain a priori first principles. This may be done as fol- 



62 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

lows. Eternity, independence, universality, are qualities of 
God. Being eternal, he is ever the same. Being indepen- 
dent, he excludes the possibility of another Being to whom 
he is necessarily related. Being universal, he possesses all 
possible endowment, and is ground for all possible existence ; 
so that no being can exist but by his will. As Universal 
Genius, all possible objects of knowledge or intellectual 
effort are immanent before the eye of his Reason ; and this 
is a permanent state. He is an object of knowledge, compre- 
hending all others ; and therefore he exhaustively knows him- 
self. He distinguishes his Self as object, from no what else, 
because there is no else to distinguish his Self from ; but 
having an exhaustive self-comprehension, he distinguishes 
within that Self all possible forms of being each from each. 

He is absolute, and never learns or changes. There is 
nothing to learn and nothing to change to, except to a wicked 
state ; and for this there can be to him no temptation. He is 
ever the same, and hence there can be no instant in time 
when he does not exhaustively know himself. Thus always 
in him are the subject and object identical. 

These two great principles, viz : That the Pure Reason 
sees a priori truth immediately, and out of all relation, plu- 
rality and difference, and that in the Pure Reason, in self-ex- 
amination, the subject and object are identical, by their sim- 
ple statement explode, as a Pythagorean system, the mental 
astronomy of the Limitists. Reason is the sun, and the 
Sense and the Understanding, with their satellite faculties, the 
circumvolving planets. 

The use of terms by the Limitists has been as vicious as 
their processes of thought, and has naturally sprung from 
their fundamental error. We will note one in the following 
sentence. " Consciousness, in the only form in which we 
can conceive it, implies limitation and change, — the percep- 
tion of one object out of many, and a comparison of that ob- 
ject with others.'' Conceive is the vicious word. Strictly, 
it is usable only with regard to things in Nature, and can 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 63 

have no relevancy to such subjects as are now under consid- 
eration. It is a word which expresses only such operations 
as lie in the Sense and Understanding. The following defi- 
nition explains this : " The concept refers to all the things 
whose common or similar attributes or traits it conceives 
(con-cepis), or grasps together into one class and one act of 
mind." — Bow en's Logic, p. 7. This is not the mode of the 
Reason's action at all. It does not run over a variety of 
objects and select out from them the points of similarity, and 
grasp these together into one act of mind. It sees one object 
in its unity as pure law, or first truth ; and examines that in 
its own light. Hence, the proper word is, intuits. Seen 
from this standpoint, consciousness does not imply limitation 
and change. A first truth we always see as absolute, — we 
are conscious of this sight ; and yet we know that neither 
consciousness nor sight is any limitation upon the truth. 
We would paraphrase the sentence thus : Consciousness, in 
the highest form in which we know it, implies and pos- 
sesses permanence ; and is the light in which pure truth is 
seen as pure object by itself, and forever the same. 

It is curious to observe how the Understanding and the 
Pure Reason run along side by side in the same sentence ; 
the inferior faculty encumbering and defeating the efforts of 
the other. Take the following for example. 

" If the infinite can be that which it is not, it is by that 
very possibility marked out as incomplete, and capable of a 
higher perfection. If it is actually everything, it possesses 
no characteristic feature by which it can be distinguished 
from anything else, and discerned as an object of conscious- 
ness." The presence in language of the word infinite and 
its cognates is decisive evidence of the presence of a faculty 
capable of entertaining it as a subject for investigation. 
This faculty, the Reason having presented the subject for 
consideration, the Understanding seizes upon it and drags it 
down into her den, and says, " can be that which it is not." 
This she says, because she cannot act, except to conceive, 



64 KNOW THE TBUTH. 

and cannot conceive, except to distinguish this from some- 
thing else ; and so cannot perceive that the very utterance 
of the word " infinite " excludes the word " else." The 
Understanding conceives the finite as one and independent, 
and the infinite as one and independent. Then the Reason 
steps in, and says the infinite is all-comprehending. This 
conflicts with the Understanding's conception, and so the puz- 
zle comes. In laboring for a solution, the Reason's affirma- 
tion is expressed hypothetically : " If it (the infinite) is act- 
ually everything ; " and thereupon the Understanding puts in 
its blind, impertinent assertion, " it possesses no characteristic 
feature by which it can be distinguished from anything else. 
There is nothing else from which to distinguish it. The per- 
ception of the Reason is as follows. The infinite Person 
comprehends intellectually, and is ground for potentially and 
actually, all that is possible and real; and so there can be 
no else with which to compare him. Because, possessing all 
fulness, he is actually everything, by this characteristic feat- 
ure of completeness he distinguishes himself from nothing, 
which is all there is, (if no-thing — void — can be said to be,) 
beside him ; and from any part, which there is within him. 
Thus is he object to himself in his own consciousness. 

This vicious working of the Understanding against the 
Reason, in the same sentences, can be more fully illustrated 
from the following extracts. " God, as necessarily deter- 
mined to pass from absolute essence to relative manifestation, 
is determined to pass either from the better to the worse, or 
from the worse to the better. A third possibility that both 
states are equal, as contradictory in itself, and as contradicted 
by our author, it is not necessary to consider." — Sir William 
Hamilton's Essays, p. 42. " Again, how can the Relative be 
conceived as coming into being ? If it is a distinct reality 
from the absolute, it must be conceived as passing from non- 
existence into existence. But to conceive an object as non- 
existent is again a self-contradiction ; for that which is con- 
ceived exists, as an object of thought, in and by that concep- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 65 

tion. We may abstain from thinking of an object at all ; 
but if we think of it, we cannot but think of it as existing. 
It is possible at one time not to think of an object at all, and 
at another to think of it as already in being ; but to think of 
it in the act of becoming, in the progress from not being into 
being, is to think that which, in the very thought, annihilates 
itself. Here again the Pantheistic hypothesis seems forced 
upon us. We can think of creation only as a change in the 
condition of that which already exists ; and thus the creat- 
ure is conceivable only as a phenomenal mode of the being 
of the Creator. ,, — Limits of Religious Thought, p. 81. 

" God," a word which has no significance except to the 
Reason : " as necessarily determined," — a phrase which be- 
longs only to the Understanding. The opposite is the truth : 
" to pass from absolute essence." This can have no meaning 
except to the Pure Reason : " to relative manifestation." 
This belongs to the Understanding. It contradicts the other ; 
and the process is absurd. The mind balks in the attempt 
to think it. In creation there is no such process as " pass- 
ing from absolute essence to relative manifestation." The 
words imply that God, in passing from the state of absolute 
essence, ceased to be absolute essence, and became " relative 
manifestation." All this is absurd ; and is in the Under- 
standing and Sense. God never became. The Creator is 
still absolute essence, as before creation ; and the logician's 
this or that are both false ; and his third possibility is not a 
contradiction, but the truth. The fact of creation may be 
thus stated. The infinite Person, freely according his will 
to the behest of his worth, and yet equally free to not so 
accord his will, put forth from himself the creative energy ; 
and this under such modes, that he neither lost nor gained 
by the act ; but that, though the latter state was diverse from 
the first, still neither was better than the other, but both 
were equally good. Before creation, he possessed absolute 
plenitude of endowments. All possible ideals were present 
before his eye. All possible joy continued a changeless 



66 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

state in his sensibility. His will, as choice, was absolute be- 
nevolence ; and, as act, was competent to all possible effort. 
To push the ideal out, and make it real, added nothing to, 
and subtracted nothing from, his fulness. 

The fact must be learned that muscular action and the 
working of pure spirit are so diverse, that the inferior mode 
cannot be an illustration of the superior. A change in a 
pure spirit, which neither adds nor subtracts, leaves the good 
unchanged. Hence, when the infinite Person created, he 
passed neither from better to worse, nor from worse to bet- 
ter ; but the two states, though diverse, were equally good. 

We proceed now to the other extract. " Again, how can 
the relative," etc. " If the Relative is a distinct reality from 
the absolute," then each is self-existent, and independent. 
The sentence annihilates itself. " It must be conceived as 
passing from non-existence into existence." The image here 
is from the Sense, as usual, and vicious accordingly. It is, 
that the soul is to look into void, and see, out of that void, 
existence come, without there being any cause for that exist- 
ence coming. This would be the phenomenon to the Sense. 
And the Sense is utterly unable to account for the phenome- 
non. The object in the Sense must appear as form; but in 
the Reason it is idea. Mr. Mansel's presentation may well 
be illustrated by a trick of jugglery. The performer stands 
before his audience, dressed in tights, and presents the palms 
of his hands to the spectators, apparently empty. He then 
closes his right hand, and then opening it again, appears hold- 
ing a bouquet of delicious flowers, which he hands about to 
the astonished gazers. The bouquet seems to come from 
nothing, i. e. to have no cause. It appears " to pass from 
non-existence to existence." But common sense corrects the 
cheating seeming, and asserts, " There is an adequate cause 
for the coming of the bunch of flowers, though we cannot 
see it." Precisely similar is creation. Could there have 
been a Sense present at that instant, creation would have 
seemed to it a juggler's trick. Out of nothing something 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 67 

would have seemed to come. But under the correcting 
guide of the Pure Reason, an adequate cause is found. Be- 
fore creation, the infinite Person did not manifest himself; 
and so was actually alone. At creation his power, which be- 
fore was immanent, he now made emanent ; and put it forth 
in the forms chosen from his Reason, and according to the 
requirement of his own worth. Nothing was added to God. 
That which was ideal he now made actual. The form as 
Idea was one, the power as Potentiality was another, and 
each was in him by itself. He put forth the power into the 
form, the Potentiality into the Idea, and the Universe was. 
Thus it was that " the Relative came into being." In the 
same manner it might be shown how, all along through the 
writings of the Limitists, the Understanding runs along by 
the Reason, and vitiates her efforts to solve her problems. 
We shall have occasion to do something of this farther on. 

The topic now under discussion could not be esteemed fin- 
ished without an examination of the celebrated dictum, " To 
think is to condition." Those who have held this to be uni- 
versally true, have also received its logical sequence, that to 
the finite intellect God cannot appear self-comprehending. 
In our present light, the dictum is known to be, not a uni- 
versal, but only a partial, truth. It is incumbent, therefore, 
to circumscribe its true sphere, and fix it there. We shall 
best enter upon this labor by answering the question, What 
is thinking? 

First. In general, and loosely, any mental operation is 
called thinking. Second. Specifically, all acts of reflection 
are thinkings. Under this head we notice two points. 
a. That act of the Understanding in which an object pre- 
sented by the Sense is analyzed, and its special and generic 
elements noted, and is thus classified, and its relations deter- 
mined, is properly a thinking. Thus, in the object cat I dis- 
tinguish specifically that it is domestic, and generically that 
it is carnivorous, b. That act of the finite spiritual person 
by which he compares the judgments of the Understanding 



68 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

with the a priori laws of the Pure Reason, and by this final 
standard decides their truth or error. Thus, the judgment 
of the young Indian warrior is, that he ought to hunt down 
and slay the man who killed his father in battle. The stand- 
ard of Reason is, that Malice is criminal. This judgment is 
found to involve malice, and so is found to be wrong. Third, 
the intuitions of the reason. These, in the finite person, 
come after a process of reflection, and are partly consequent 
upon it ; yet they take place in another faculty, which is 
developed by this process; but they are such, that by no 
process of reflection alone could they be. Thinking, in the 
Universal Genius, is the sight, at once and forever, of all 
possible object of mental effort. It is necessary and sponta- 
neous, and so is an endowment, not an attainment ; and is 
possessed without effort. We are prepared now to entertain 
the following statements : — 

A. So far as it represents thinking as the active, i. e. 
causative ground, or agent of the condition, the dictum is not 
true. The fact of the thinking is not, cannot be, the ground 
of the condition. The condition of the object thought, what- 
ever the form of thinking may be, must lie as far back at 
least as the ground of the thinker. Thus, God's self, as 
ground for his Genius, must also be ground for all conditions. 
Yet men think of an object in its conditions. This is be- 
cause the same Being who constructed the objects in their 
conditions, constructed also man as thinker, correlated to 
those conditions, so that he should think upon things as they 
are. In this view, to think is not to condition, but is mental 
activity in the conditions already imposed. Thus it is with 
the Understanding ; and the process of thinking, as above 
designated, goes on in accordance with the law stated in a, 
of the second general definition. It follows, therefore, 

B. That so far as the dictum expresses the fact, that with- 
in the sphere of conditions proper, — observing the distinc- 
tion of conditions into two classes heretofore made, — the 
finite intellect must act under them, and see those objects 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 69 

upon which they lie, accordingly, — as, for instance, a geo- 
metrical figure must be seen in Time and Space, — so far it is 
true, and no farther. For instance : To see an eagle flying, 
is to see it under all the conditions imposed upon the bird as 
flying, and the observer as seeing. But when men intuit the 
a 'priori truth, Malice is criminal, they perceive that it lies 
under no conditions proper, but is absolute and universal. 
We perceive, then, 

C. That for all mental operations which have as object 
pure laws and ideal forms, and that Being in whom all these 
inhere, this dictum is not true. The thinker may be con- 
ditioned in the proper sense of that term ; yet he entertains 
objects of thought which are unconditioned ; and they are 
not affected by it. Thus, it does not affect the universality 
of the principle in morals above noted that I perceive it to 
be such, and that necessarily. 

Assuming, then, that by the dictum, To think is to con- 
dition, is meant, not that the thinker, by the act of thinking, 
constructs the conditions, but that he recognizes in himself, 
as thinking subject, and in the object thought, the several 
conditions (proper) thereof, — the following statements will 
define the province of this dictum. 

1. The Universe as physical object, the observing Sense, 
and the discursive Understanding, lie wholly within it. 

2. Created spiritual persons, as constituted beings, also lie 
wholly within it. But it extends no farther. On the other 
hand, 

3. Created spiritual persons, in their capacities to intuit 
pure laws, and pure ideal forms ; and those laws and forms 
themselves lie wholly without it. 

4. So also does God the absolute Being in whom those 
laws and forms inhere. Or, in general terms, 

When conditions (proper) already lie upon the object 
thought, since the thinker must needs see the object under 
its conditions, it is true that, To think is to condition. But 
so far as it is meant that thinking is such a kind of operation 



70 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

that it cannot proceed except the object be conditioned, it is 
not true ; for there are processes of thought whose objects 
are unconditioned. 

The question, " What are Space and Time ? " with which 
Mr. Spencer opens his chapter on " Ultimate Scientific Ideas,'' 
introduces a subject common to all the Limitists, and which, 
therefore, should be considered in this part of our work. A 
remark made a few pages back, respecting an essay in the 
" North American Review " for October 1864, applies with 
equal force here in reference to another essay by the same 
writer, in the preceding July number of that periodical. At 
most, his view can only be unfolded. He has left nothing to 
be added. In discussing a subject so abstruse and difficult as 
this, it would seem, in the present stage of human thought at 
least, most satisfactory to set out from the Reason rather than 
the Sense, from the idea rather than the phenomenon ; and 
so will we do. 

In general, then, it may be said that Space and Time are 
a 'priori conditions of created being. The following extracts 
are in point. " Pure Space, therefore, as given in the primi- 
tive intuition, is pure form for any possible phenomenon. 
As unconjoined in the unity of any form, it is given in the 
primitive intuition, and is a cognition necessary and univer- 
sal. Though now obtained from experience, and in chrono- 
logical order subsequent to experience, yet is it no deduction 
from experience, nor at all given by experience ; but it is 
wholly independent of all experience, prior to it, and without 
which it were impossible that any experience of outer object 
should be." " Pure Time, as given in the intuition, is im- 
mediately beheld to be conditional for all possible period, 
prior to any period being actually limited, and necessarily 
continuing, though all bounded period be taken away." — 
Rational Psychology, pp. 125, 128. 

Again, a clearly defined distinction may be made between 
them as conditions. Space is the a priori condition of mate- 
rial being. Should a spiritual person, as the soul of a man, 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 71 

be stripped of all its material appurtenances, and left to exist 
as pure spirit, it could hold no communication with any other 
being but God ; and no other being but he could hold any 
communication with it. It would exist out of all relation to 
Space. Not so, however, with Time. Time is the a 'priori 
condition of all created being, of the spiritual as well as 
material. In the case just alluded to, the isolated spiritual 
person would have a consciousness of succession and dura- 
tion, although he would have no standard by which to meas- 
ure that duration ; he could think in processes, and only in 
processes, and thus would be necessarily related to Time. 
Dr. Hickok has expressed this thus : " Space in reference to 
time has no significancy. Time is the pure form for phenom- 
ena as given in the internal sense only, and in these there 
can be only succession. The inner phenomenon may endure 
in time, but can have neither length, breadth, nor thickness 
in space. A thought, or other mental phenomenon, may fill 
a period, but cannot have superficial or solid content ; it may 
be before or after another, but not above or below it, nor with 
any outer or inner side." — Rational Psychology f , p. 135. 

Space and Time may also be distinguished thus : " Space 
has three dimensions," or, rather, there can be three dimen- 
sions in space, — length, breadth, and thickness. In other 
words, it is solid room. " Time has but one dimension," or, 
rather, but one dimension can enter into Time, — length. In 
Time there can only be procession. Space and Time may 
then be called, the one " statical," the other " dynamical," 
illimitation. Following the essayist already referred to, they 
may be defined as follows : 

" Space is the infinite and indivisible Eeceptacle of Matter. 

" Time is the infinite and indivisible Eeceptacle of Exist- 
ence." 

Both, then, are marked by receptivity, indivisibility, and 
illimitability. The one is receptivity, that material object 
may come into it; the other, that event may occur in it. 
There is for neither a final unit nor any limit. All objects 



72 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

are divisible in Space, and all periods in Time ; and thus 
also are all limits comprehended, but they are without limit. 
Turning now from these more general aspects of the subject, 
a detailed examination may be conducted as follows. 

The fundamental law given by the Reason is, as was seen 
above, that Space and Time are a 'priori conditions of created 
being. We can best consider this law in its application to 
the facts, by observing two general divisions, with two sub- 
divisions under each. Space and Time have, then, two gen- 
eral phases, one within, and one without, the mind. Each 
of these has two special phases. The former, one in the 
Sense, and one in the Understanding. The latter, one with- 
in, and one without, the Universe. 

First general phase, within the mind. First special phase, 
in the Sense. " As pure form in the primitive intuition, they 
are wholly limitless, and void of any conjunction in unity, 
having themselves no figure nor period, and having within 
themselves no figure nor period, but only pure diversity, in 
which any possible conjunction of definite figures and periods 
may, in some way, be effected." In other words, they are 
pure, a priori, formal laws, which are conditional to the being 
of any sense as the perceiver of a phenomenon ; and yet this 
sense could present no figure or period, till some figure or 
period was produced into it by an external agency. As such 
necessary formal laws, Space and Time "have a necessity 
of being independently of all phenomena." Or, in other 
words, the fact that all phenomena must appear in them, lies 
beyond the province of power. This, however, is no more a 
limit to the Deity than it is a limit to him that he cannot 
hate his creatures and be good. In our experience the Sense 
gives two kinds of phenomena : the one the actual phenom- 
ena of actual objects, the other, ideal phenomena with ideal 
objects. The one is awakened by the presentation, in the 
physical sense, of a material object, as a house ; the other, 
by the activity of the imaging faculty, engaged in construct- 
ing some form in the inner or mental sense, from forms 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 73 

actually observed. Upon both alike the formal law of Space 
and Time must lie. 

Second special phase, in the Understanding. Although 
there is pure form, if there was no more than this, no notion 
of a system of things could be. Each object would have its 
own space, and each event its own time. But one object 
and event could not be seen in any relation to another object 
and event. In order that this shall be, there must be some 
ground by which all the spaces and times of phenomena shall 
be joined into a unity of Space and Time ; so that all objects 
shall be seen in one Space, and all events in one Time. u A 
notional connective for the phenomena may determine these 
phenomena in their places and periods in the whole of all 
space and of all time, and so may give both the phenomena 
and their space and time in an objective experience." The 
operation of the Understanding is, then, the connection, by a 
notional, of all particular spaces and times ; v. e. the space 
and time of each phenomenon in the Sense, into a compre- 
hensive unity of Space and Time, in which all phenomena 
can be seen to occur ; and thus a system can be. In a word, 
not only must each phenomenon be seen in its own space 
and time, but all phenomena must be seen in one Space and 
Time. This connection of the manifold into unity is the 
peculiar work of the Understanding. An examination of 
the facts as above set forth enables us to construct a general 
formula for the application to all minds of the fundamental 
law given by the Reason. That law, that all objects must 
be seen in Space, and all events in Time, involves the sub- 
ordinate law : 

That no mind can observe material objects or any events 
except under the conditions of Space and Time ; or, to change 
the phraseology, Space and Time are a priori conditional to 
the being of any mind or faculty in a mind capable of ob- 
serving a material object or any event. This will, perhaps, 
be deemed to be, in substance, Kant's theory. However 
that may be, this is true, but is only a part of the truth. 



74 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

The rest will appear just below. The reader will notice 
that no exception is made to the law here laid down, and will 
start at the thought that this law lies upon the Deity equally 
as upon created beings. No exception is made, because 
none can be truthfully made. The intellect is just as un- 
qualified in its assertion on this point as in those noticed on 
an earlier page of this work. Equally with the laws of 
numbers does the law of Space and Time condition all intel- 
lect. The Deity can no more see a house out of all relation 
to Space and Time than he can see how to make two and 
two iive. 

Second general phase, without the mind. First special 
phase, within the Universe. All that we are now to exam- 
ine is objective to us ; and all the questions which can arise 
are questions of fact. Let us search for the fact carefully 
and hold it fearlessly. To recur to the general law. It was 
found at the outset that Reason gave the idea of Space and 
Time as pure conditions for matter and event. We are now 
to observe the pure become the actual condition ; or, in other 
words, we are to see the condition realized. Since, then, we 
are to observe material objects and events in a material sys- 
tem, it is fitting to use the Sense and the Understanding ; 
and our statements and conclusions will conform to those 
faculties. 

We have a concept of the Universe as a vast system in 
the form of a sphere in which all things are included. This 
spherical system is complete, definite, limited, and so has 
boundaries. A portion of " immeasurable void " — Space — 
has been occupied. Where there was nothing, something 
has become. Now it is evident that the possibility of our 
having a concept of the Universe, or of a space and a time 
in the Universe, is based upon the presence of an actual, un- 
derlying, all-pervading substance, which fills and forms the 
boundaries of the Universe, and thus enables spaces and 
times to be. We have no concept except as in limits, and 
those limits are conceived to be substance. In other words, 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 75 

space is distance, and time is duration, in our concept. Take 
away the boundaries which mark the distance, and the pro- 
cession of events which forms the duration, and in the con- 
cept pure negation is left. To illustrate. Suppose there be 
in our presence a cubic yard of vacuum. Is this vacuum an 
entity? Not at all. It can neither be perceived by the 
Sense nor conceived by the Understanding. Yet it is a 
space. Speaking carelessly, we should say that this cube 
was object to us. Why? Because it is enclosed by sub- 
stantial boundaries. All, then, that is object, all that is en- 
tity, is substance. In our concept, therefore, a space is solid 
distance within the substance, and the totality of all distances 
in the Universe is conceived to be Space. Again ; suppose 
there pass before our mind a procession of events. One 
event has a fixed recurrence. In our concept the procession 
of events is a time, and the recurring event marks a period 
in time. The events proceeding are all that there is in the 
concept ; and apart from the procession a conception of time 
is impossible. The procession of all the events of the Uni- 
verse, that is duration, is our concept of Time. Thus, within 
the Universe, space is solid distance and time is duration ; 
and neither has any actuality except as the Universe is. 
Let us assume for a moment that our concept is the final 
truth, and observe the result. In that concept space is lim- 
ited by matter, and matter is conceived of as unlimited. 
This result is natural and necessary, because matter, sub- 
stance, "a space-filling force," is the underlying notional 
upon which as ground any concept is possible. If matter is 
truly illimitable, then materialistic pantheism, which is really 
atheism, logically follows. Again; in our concept time is 
duration, and duration is conceived of as unlimited. If so, 
the during event is unlimited. From this hypothesis ideal- 
istic pantheism logically follows. But bring our concept into 
the clear light, and under the searching eye of Reason, and 
all ground for those systems vanishes instantly. Instead of 
finding matter illimitable and the limit for a space, Space is 



76 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

seen to be illimitable and pure condition, that matter may 
establish a limit within it. And Time, instead of being du- 
ration, and so limited by the during event, is found to be 
illimitable and pure condition, that event may have duration 
in it. This brings us to the 

Second special phase, without or independent of the Uni- 
verse. We have been considering facts in an objective ex- 
perience, and have used therefor the Sense and Understand- 
ing, as was proper. What we are now to consider is a sub- 
ject of which all experience is impossible. It can therefore 
be examined only by that faculty which presents it, the Pure 
Reason. Remove now from our presence all material object 
in Space, and all during event in Time ; in a word, remove 
the Universe, and what will be left ? As the Universe had 
a beginning, and both it and all things in it are conditioned 
by Space and Time, so also let it have an end. Will its con- 
ditions cease in its ceasing ? Could another Universe arise, 
upon which would be imposed no conditions of Space and 
Time ? These questions are answered in the statement of 
them. Those conditions must remain. When we have ab- 
stracted from our concept all substance and duration, there is 
left only void. Hence, in our concept it would be proper to 
say that without the Universe is void, and before the Uni- 
verse there was void. Also, that in void there is no thing, 
no where, and no when ; or, void is the negation of actual 
substance, space, and time. But pure Space and Time, as a 
priori conditions that material object and during event may 
be, have not ceased. There is still room, that an object may 
become. There is still opportunity, that an event may occur. 
By the Reason it is seen that these conditions have the same 
necessary being for material object and occurring event, as 
the conditions of mental activity have for mind ; and they 
have their peculiar characteristics exactly according with 
what they do condition, just as the laws of thought have 
their peculiar characteristics, which exactly suit them to 
what they condition. If there be a spiritual person, the 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 77 

moral law must be given in the intuition as necessarily bind- 
ing upon him ; and this is an a priori condition of the being 
of such person. Precisely similar is the relation between 
Space and Time as a priori conditions, and object and event 
upon which they lie. The moral law has its characteristics, 
which fit it to condition spiritual person. Space and Time 
have their characteristics, which fit them to condition object 
and event. Space, then, as room, and Time as opportunity, 
and both as a priori conditions of a Universe, must have the 
same necessity of being that God has. They must be, as he 
must be. But observe, they are pure conditions, and no 
more. They are neither things nor persons. The idea of 
them in the Reason is simple and unanalyzable. They can 
be assigned their logical position, but further than this the 
mind cannot go. 

The devout religious soul will start, perhaps, at some of 
the positions stated above. We have not wrought to pain 
such soul, but only for truth, and the clue of escape from all 
dilemmas. The only question to be raised is, are they true ? 
If a more patient investigation than we have given to this 
subject shall show our positions false, then we shall only 
have failed as others before us have ; but we shall love the 
truth which shall be found none the less. But if they shall 
be found true, then is it certain that God always knew them 
so and was always pleased with them, and no derogation to 
his dignity can come from the proclamation of them, however 
much they may contravene hitherto cherished opinions. 
Most blessed next after the Saviour's tender words of for- 
giveness are those pure words of the apostle John, " No lie 
is of the truth." 

The conclusions to which we have arrived enable us to 
state how it is that primarily God was out of all relation to 
Space and Time. He was out of all relation to Space, be- 
cause he is not material object, thereby having limits, form, 
and position in Space. He was out of all relation to Time, 
because he holds immediately, and at once, all possible objects 



78 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

of knowledge before the Eye of his mind. Hence he can 
learn nothing, and can experience no process of thought. 
Within his mind no event occurs, no substance endures. Yet, 
while this is true, it is equally true that, as the Creator, he 
is conditioned by Space and Time, just as he is conditioned 
by himself; and it may be found by future examination that 
they are essential to that Self. But, whatever conclusion 
may be arrived at respecting so difficult and abstract a sub- 
ject, this much is certain : God, as the infinite and absolute 
spiritual Person, self-existent and supreme, is the great Fact ; 
and Space and Time, whatever they are, will, can in no wise 
interfere with and compromise his perfectness and supremacy. 
It is a pleasure to be able to close this discussion with reflec- 
tions profound and wise as those contained in the following 
extract from the essay heretofore alluded to. 

" The reciprocal relations of Space, Time, and God, are 
veiled in impenetrable darkness. Many minds hesitate to 
attribute real infinity to Space and Time, lest it should con- 
flict with the infinity of God. Such timidity has but a slen- 
der title to respect. If the Laws of Thought necessitate 
any conclusion whatever, they necessitate the conclusion that 
Space and Time are each infinite ; and if we cannot recon- 
cile this result with the infinity of God, there is no alterna- 
tive but to accept of scepticism with as good a grace as pos- 
sible. No man is worthy to join in the search for truth, who 
trembles at the sight of it when found. But a profound 
faith in the unity of all truth destroys scepticism by antici- 
pation, and prophesies the solutions of reason. Space is 
infinite, Time is infinite, God is infinite ; three infinites co- 
exist. Limitation is possible only between existences of the 
same kind. There could not be two infinite Spaces, two infi- 
nite Times, or two infinite Gods ; but while infinites of the same 
kind cannot coexist, infinites of unlike kinds may. When an 
hour limits a rod, infinite Time will limit infinite Space; 
when a year and an acre limit wisdom, holiness, and love, 
infinite Space and Time will limit the infinite God. But not 



KNOW THE TKUTH. 79 

before. Time exists ubiquitously, Space exists eternally, 
God exists ubiquitously and eternally. The nature of the 
relations between the three infinites, so long as Space and 
Time are ontologically incognizable, is utterly and absolutely 
incomprehensible ; but to assume contradiction, exclusion, or 
mutual limitation to be among these relations, is as gratui- 
tous as it is irreverent." 



80 KNOW THE TRUTH. 



PART III. 

AN EXAMINATION IN DETAIL OF CERTAIN IMPORTANT PAS- 
SAGES IN THE WRITINGS OF THE LIMITISTS. 

ADDITIONAL REFLECTIONS UPON THE WRITINGS OF SIR WILLIAM 
HAMILTON. 

It never formed any part of the plan of this work to give 
an extended examination of the logician's system of meta- 
physics, or even to notice it particularly. From the first, it 
was only proposed to attempt the refutation of that peculiar 
theory which he enounced in his celebrated essay, " The 
Philosophy of the Unconditioned, 9 ' a monograph that has 
generally been received as a fair and sufficient presentation 
thereof; and which he supplemented, but never superseded. 
If the arguments adduced, and illustrations presented, in the 
first part, in behalf of the fact of the Pure Reason, are satis- 
factory, and the analysis and attempted refutation of the 
celebrated dictum based upon two extremes, an excluded 
middle and a mean, in the second part, are accepted as suffi- 
cient, as also the criticisms upon certain general corollaries, 
and the explanation of certain general questions, then, so far 
at least as Sir William Hamilton is concerned, but little, if 
any, further remark will be expected. A few subordinate 
passages in the essay above referred to may, however, it is 
believed, be touched with profit by the hand of criticism and 
explanation. To these, therefore, the reader's attention is 
now called. 

In remarking upon Cousin's philosophy, Hamilton says: 
" Now, it is manifest that the whole doctrine of M. Cousin 
is involved in the proposition, that the Unconditioned, the 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 81 

Absolute, the Infinite, is immediately known in consciousness, 
and this by difference, plurality, and relation" It is hardly- 
necessary to repeat here the criticism, that the terms infinite, 
absolute, &c. are entirely out of place when used to express 
abstractions. As before, we ask, infinite — what ? The fact 
of abstraction is one of the greatest of limitations, and vi- 
tiates every such utterance of the Limitists. The truth may 
be thus stated : — The infinite Person, or the necessary prin- 
ciple as inhering in that Person, is immediately known in 
consciousness, and this, not by difference, plurality, and rela- 
tion, but by a direct intuition of the Pure Keason. In this 
act the object seen — the idea — is held right in the Reason's 
eye ; and so is seen by itself and in itself. Hence it is not 
known by difference, because there is no other object but the 
one before that eye, with which to compare it. Neither is it 
known by plurality, because it is seen by itself, and there is 
no other object contemplated, with which to join it. Nor is 
it known by relation, because it is seen to be what it is in 
itself, and as out of all relation. A little below, in the same 
paragraph, Hamilton again remarks upon Cousin, thus : — 
" The recognition of the absolute as a constitutive principle 
of intelligence, our author regards as at once the condition 
and the end of philosophy." The true idea, accurately 
stated, is as follows. The fact that, by a constituting law of 
intelligence, the Pure Reason immediately intuits absolute- 
ness as the distinctive quality of a priori first principles, and 
of the infinite Person in whom they inhere, is the condition, 
and the application of that fact is the end of philosophy. 

These two erroneous positions the logician follows with 
his celebrated " statement of the opinions which may be en- 
tertained regarding the Unconditioned, as an immediate ob- 
ject of knowledge and of thought." The four " opinions," to 
which he reduces all those held by philosophers, are too well 
known to need quotation here. They are noticed now, only 
to afford an opportunity for the presentation of a fifth, and, 
as it is believed, the true opinion, which is as follows. 
6 



82 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

The infinite Person is "inconceivable," but is cognizable 
as a fact, is known to be, and is, to a certain extent, known 
to be such and such ; all this, by an immediate intuition of 
the Pure Reason, of which the spiritual person is definitely 
conscious ; and that Person is so seen to be primarily un- 
conditioned, i. e. out of all relation, difference, and plurality. 

" Inconceivable." As we have repeatedly said, this word 
has no force except with regard to things in nature. 

Is cognizable as a fact, &c. Nothing can be more certain 
than that an exhaustive knowledge of the Deity is impossible 
to any creature. But equally certain is it, that, except as we 
have some true, positive, reliable knowledge of him as he is, 
we cannot be moral beings under his moral government. 
Take, for instance, the moral law as the expression of God's 
nature. 1 . Either " God is love," or he is not love — hate ; 
or he is indifferent, i. e. love has no relation to him. If 
the last alternative is true, then the other two have no rel- 
evancy to the subject in hand. Upon such a supposition, it 
is unquestionably true that he is utterly inscrutable. Then 
are we in just the condition which the Limitists assert. But 
observe the results respecting ourselves. Our whole moral 
nature is the most bitter, tantalizing falsehood which it is 
possible for us to entertain as an object of knowledge. We 
feel that we ought to love the perfect Being. At times we 
go starving for love to him and beg that bread. He has no 
love to give. He never felt a pulsation of affection. He 
sits alone on his icy throne, in a realm of eternal snow ; and, 
covered with the canopy, and shut in by the panoply, of in- 
scrutable mystery, he mocks our cry. We beg for bread. 
He gives us a stone. Does such a picture instantly shock, 
yea, horrify, all our finer sensibilities ? Does the soul cry out 
in agony, her rejection of such a conclusion ? In that cry 
we hear the truth in God's voice ; for he made the soul. 
Still less can the thought be entertained that he is hate. It 
is impossible, then, to think of God except as love. We know 
what love is. We know what God is. There is a some- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 83 

what common to the Deity and his spiritual creatures. This 
enables us to attain a final law, as follows. 

In so far as God's creatures have faculties and capacities 
in common with him, in so far do they know him positively ; 
hut in all matters to which their peculiarities as creatures per- 
tain, they only know him negatively ; i. e. they know that he 
is the opposite of themselves. 

That passage which was quoted in a former page, simply 
to prove that Sir William Hamilton denied the reality of the 
Reason as distinct from the Understanding, requires and will 
now receive a particular examination. He says : " In the 
Kantian philosophy, both faculties perform the same func- 
tion ; both seek the one in the many ; — the Idea (Idee) is 
only the Concept (Begriff) sublimated into the inconceiv- 
able ; Reason only the Understanding which has ' overleaped 
itself.' " In this sentence, and the remarks which follow it, 
the logician shows that he neither comprehends the assigned 
function and province of the Reason, nor possesses any accu- 
rate knowledge of the mental phenomena upon which he 
passes judgment. A diagnosis could not well be more thor- 
oughly erroneous than his. For " both faculties " do not 
" perform the same function." Only the Understanding 
seeks " the one in the many." The Reason seeks the many 
in the one. The functions and modes of activity of the two 
faculties are exactly opposite. The Understanding runs 
about through the universe, and gathers up what facts it may, 
and concludes truth therefrom. The Reason sees the truth 
first, as necessary a priori law, and holding it up as stand- 
ard, measures facts by it, or uses the Sense to find the facts 
in which it inheres. Besides, the author, in this assertion, is 
guilty of a most glaring petitio principii. For, the very 
question at issue is, whether " both faculties " do " perform 
the same function " ; whether " both " do " seek the one in 
the many." In order not to leave the hither side of the 
question built upon a bare assertion, it will be proper to 
revert to a few of those proofs adduced heretofore. The 



84 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

Reason sees the truth first. Take now the assertion, Malice 
is criminal. Is this primarily learned by experience ; or is 
it an intuitive conviction, which conditions experience. Or, 
in more general terms, does a child need to be taught what 
guilt is, before it can feel guilty, as it is taught its letters 
before it can read ; or does the feeling of guilt arise within 
it spontaneously, upon a breach of known law. If the latter 
be the true experience, then it can only be accounted for 
upon the ground that an idea of right and wrong, as an a 
priori law, is organic in man ; and, by our definition, the 
presentation of this law to the attention in consciousness is 
the act of the Eeason. Upon such a theory the one princi- 
ple was not sought, and is not found, in the many acts, but 
the many acts are compared with, and judged by, that one 
standard, which was seen first, and as necessarily true. 
Take another illustration. All religions, in accounting for 
the universe, have one common point of agreement, which is, 
that some being or beings, superior to it and men, produced 
it. And, except perhaps among the most degraded, the more 
subtle notion of a final cause, though often developed in a 
crude form, is associated with the other. These notions 
must be accounted for. How shall it be done ? Are they 
the result of experience ? Then, the first human beings had 
no such notions. But another and more palpable objection 
arises. Are they the result of individual experience ? 
Then there would be as many religions as individuals. But, 
very ignorant people have the experience, — persons who 
never learned anything but the rudest forms of work, from 
the accumulated experience of others ; nor by their own ex- 
perience, to make the smallest improvement in a simple agri- 
cultural instrument. How, then, could they learn by expe- 
rience one of the profoundest speculative ideas ? As a last 
resort, it may be said they were taught it by philosophers. 
But this is negatived by the fact, that philosophers do not, to 
any considerable extent, teach the people, either immediately 
or mediately ; but that generally those who have the least phi- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 85 

losophy have the largest influence. And what is most in point, 
none of these hypotheses will account for the fact, that the 
gist of the idea, however crude its form, is everywhere the 
same. Be it a Fetish, or Brahm, or God, in the kernel final 
cause will be found. It would seem that any candid mind 
must acknowledge that no combined effort of men, were this 
possible, could secure such universal exactitude. But turn 
now and examine any individual in the same direction, as 
we did just above, respecting the question of right and wrong, 
and a plain answer will come directly. The notion of first 
cause, however crude and rudimentary its form, is organic. 
It arises, then, spontaneously, and the individual takes it — 
" the one," — and in it finds a reason for the phenomena of 
nature — " the many," — and is satisfied. And this is an 
experience not peculiar to the philosopher ; but is shared 
equally by the illiterate, — those entirely unacquainted with 
scientific abstractions. These illustrations might be carried 
to an almost indefinite length, showing that commonly, in 
the every-day experiences of life, men are accustomed not 
only to observe phenomena and form conclusions, as " It is 
cloudy to-day, and may rain to-morrow," but also to measure 
phenomena by an original and fixed standard, as, " This 
man is malicious, and therefore wicked." Between the two 
modes of procedure, the following distinction may always be 
observed. Conclusions are always doubtful, only probable. 
Decisions are always certain. Conclusions give us what 
may be, decisions what must be. The former result from 
concepts and experience, the latter from intuitions and logi- 
cal processes. Thus is made plain the fact that, to give it 
the most favorable aspect, Sir William Hamilton, in his 
eagerness to maintain his theory, has entirely mistaken one 
class of human experiences, and so was led to deny the actu- 
ality of the most profound and important faculty of the 
human mind. In view of the foregoing results, one need 
not hesitate to say that, whether he ever attempted it or not, 
Kant never " has clearly shown that the idea of the uncon- 



86 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

ditioned can have no objective reality," for it is impossible 
to do this, the opposite being the truth. Its objective reality 
is God ; it therefore " conveys " to us the most important 
" knowledge," and " involves " no " contradictions." More- 
over, unconditionedness is a " simple," " positive," " notion," 
and not "a fasciculus of negations " ; but is an attribute of 
God, who comprehends all positives. A little after, Hamil- 
ton says : " And while he [Kant] appropriated Eeason as a 
specific faculty to take cognizance of these negations, hypos- 
tatized as positive, under the Platonic name of Ideas" &c. 
Here, again, the psychological question arises, Is the Reason 
such a faculty ? Are its supposed objects negations ? Are 
they hypostatized as positive ? Evidently, if we establish 
an affirmative answer to the first question, a negative to the 
others follows directly, and the logician's system is a failure. 
Again, the discrimination of " thought into positive and nega- 
tive is simply absurd. All thought is positive. The phrase, 
negative thought, is only a convenient expression for the 
refusal of the mind to think. But " Ideas " are not thoughts 
at all, in the strict sense of that term. It refers to the 
operations of the mind upon objects which have been pre- 
sented. Ideas are a part of such objects. All objects in the 
mind are positive. The phrase, negative object, is a contra- 
diction. But, wdthout any deduction, we see immediately 
that ideas are positives. The common consciousness of the 
human race affirms this. 

The following remark upon Cousin requires some notice. 
" For those who, with M. Cousin, regard the notion of the 
unconditioned as a positive and real knowledge of existence 
in its all-comprehensive unity, and who consequently employ 
the terms Absolute, Infinite, Unconditioned, as only various 
expressions for the same identity, are imperatively bound to 
prove that their idea of the One corresponds, either with that 
Unconditioned we have distinguished as the Absolute, or with 
that Unconditioned we have distinguished as the Infinite, or 
that it includes both, or that it excludes both. This they have 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 87 

not done, and, we suspect, have never attempted to do." The 
italics are Hamilton's. The above statement is invalid, for 
the following reasons. The Absolute, therein named, has 
been shown to be irrelevant to the matter in hand, and an 
absurdity. It is self-evident that the term " limited whole," 
as applied to Space and Time, is a violation of the laws of 
thought. Since we seek the truth, that Absolute must be 
rejected. Again, the definitions of the terms absolute and 
infinite, which have been found consistent, and pertinent to 
Space and Time, have been further found irrelevant and 
meaningless, when applied to the Being, the One, who is the 
Creator. That Being, existing primarily out of all relation 
to Space and Time, must, if known at all, be studied, and 
known as he is. The terms infinite and absolute will, of 
necessity, then, when applied to him, have entirely different 
significations from what they will when applied to Space and 
Time. So, then, no decision of questions arising in this lat- 
ter sphere will have other than a negative value in the for- 
mer. The questions in that sphere must be decided on their 
own merits, as must those in this. What is really required, 
then, is, that the One, the Person, be shown to be both abso- 
lute and infinite, and that these, as qualities, consistently in- 
here in that unity. As this has already been done in the 
first Part of this treatise, nothing need be added here. 

Some pages afterwards, in again remarking upon M. 
Cousin, Hamilton quotes from him as follows : " The con- 
dition of intelligence is difference ; and an act of knowledge 
is only possible where there exists a plurality of terms." 
In a subsequent paragraph the essayist argues from this, 
thus : " But, on the other hand, it is asserted, that the con- 
dition of intelligence, as knowing, is plurality and difference ; 
consequently, the condition of the absolute as existing, and 
under which it must be known, and the condition of intelli- 
gence, as capable of knowing, are incompatible. For, if we 
suppose the absolute cognizable, it must be identified either, 
first, with the subject knowing ; or, second, with the object 



88 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

known ; or, third, with the indifference of both." Rejecting 
the first two, Hamilton says : " The third hypothesis, on the 
other hand, is contradictory of the plurality of intelligence ; 
for, if the subject of consciousness be known as one, a plu- 
rality of terms is not the necessary condition of intelligence. 
The alternative is therefore necessary : Either the absolute 
cannot be known or conceived at all, or our author is wrong 
in subjecting thought to the conditions of plurality and dif- 
ference." 

In these extracts may be detected an error which, so far 
as the author is informed, has been hitherto overlooked by 
philosophers. The logician presents an alternative which is 
unquestionably valid. Yet with almost, if not entire una- 
nimity, writers have been accustomed to assign plurality, re- 
lation, difference, and — to adopt a valuable suggestion of 
Mr. Spencer — likeness, as conditions of all knowledge ; and 
among them those who have claimed for man a positive 
knowledge of the absolute. The error by which they have 
been drawn into this contradiction is purely psychological; 
and arises, like the other errors which we have pointed out, 
from an attempt to carry over the laws of the animal nature, 
the Sense and Understanding, by which man learns of, and 
concludes about, things in nature, to the Pure Reason, by 
which he sees and knows, with an absolutely certain knowl- 
edge, principles and laws ; and to subject this faculty to those 
conditions. Now, there can be no doubt but that if the lo- 
gician's premiss is true, the conclusion is unavoidable. If 
" an act of knowledge is only possible where there exists a 
plurality of terms," then is it impossible that we should 
know God, or that he should know himself The logic is im- 
pregnable. But the conclusion is revolting. What must be 
done, then ? Erect some makeshift subterfuge of mental 
impotence ? It will not meet the exigency of the case. It 
will not satisfy the demand of the soul. Nay, more, she 
casts it out utterly, as a most gross insult. Unquestionably, 
but one course is left ; and that is so plain, that one cannot 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 89 

see how even a Limitist could have overlooked it. Correct 
the premiss. Study out the true psychology, and that will 
give us perfect consistency. Hold with a death-grip to the 
principle that every truth is in complete harmony with every 
other truth ; and hold with no less tenacity to the principle 
that the human intellect is true. And what is the true prem- 
iss which through an irrefutable logic will give us a satis- 
factory, a true, an undoubted conclusion. This. A plurality 
of terms is not the necessary condition of intelligence ; but 
objects which are pure, simple, unanalyzable, may be directly 
known by an intellect. Or, to be more explicit. Plurality, 
relation, difference, and likeness, are necessary conditions of 
intelligence through the Sense and Understanding ; but they 
do not in the least degree lie upon the Eeason, which sees its 
objects as pure, simple ideas which are self-evident, and, con- 
sequently, are not subject to those conditions. Whatever 
knowledge we may have of "mammals," we undoubtedly 
gain under the conditions of plurality, relation, difference, 
and likeness ; for " mammals " are things in nature. But 
absoluteness is a pure, simple, unanalyzable idea in the Rea- 
son, and as such is seen and known by a direct insight as 
out of all plurality, relation, difference, and likeness : for 
this is a quality of the self-existent Person, and so belongs 
wholly to the sphere of the supernatural, and can be exam- 
ined only by a spiritual person who is also supernatural. 

Let us illustrate these two kinds of knowledge. 1. The 
knowledge given by the Sense and Understanding. This is 
of material objects. Take, for example, an apple. The 
Sense observes it as one of many apples, and that many 
characteristics belong to it as one apple. Among these, color, 
skin, pulp, juices, flavor, &c. may be mentioned. It observes, 
also, that it bears a relation to the stem and tree on which it 
grows, and, as well, that its several qualities have relations 
among themselves. One color belongs to the skin, another 
to the pulp. The skin, as cover, relates to the pulp as cov- 
ered, and the like. The apple, moreover, is distinguished 



90 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

from other fruits by marks of difference and marks of like- 
ness. It has a different skin, a different pulp, and a different 
flavor. Yet, it is like other fruits, in that it grows on a tree, 
and possesses those marks just named, which, though differ- 
ing among themselves, according to the fruit in which they 
inhere, have a commonality of kind, as compared with other 
objects. This distinguishing, analyzing, and classifying of 
characteristics, and connecting them into a unity, as an 
apple, is the work of the Sense and Understanding. 

2. The knowledge given by the Pure Reason. This is 
of a 'priori laws, of these laws combined in pure archetypal 
forms, and of God as the Supreme Being who comprehends 
all laws and forms. A fundamental difference in the two 
modes of activity immediately strikes one's attention. In 
the former case, the mode was by distinguishment and anal- 
ysis. In the latter it is by comprehension and synthesis. 
Take the idea of moral obligation to illustrate this topic. 
No one but a Limitist will, it is believed, contend against the 
position of Dr. Hopkins, "that this idea of obligation or 
oughtness is a simple idea." This being once acceded, car- 
ries with it the whole theory which the author seeks to 
maintain. How may "a simple idea" be known ? It cannot 
be distinguished or analyzed. Being simple, it is sui generis. 
Hence, it cannot be known by plurality or relation, difference 
or likeness. If known at all, it must be known as it is in 
itself , by a spontaneous insight. Such, in fact, is the mode of 
the activity of the Pure Reason, and such are the objects of 
that activity. In maintaining, then, the doctrine of " intellect- 
ual intuition," M. Cousin was right, but wrong in subjecting 
all knowledge " to the conditions of plurality and difference." 

Near the close of the essay under examination Sir Wm. 
Hamilton states certain problems, which he is " confident " 
Cousin cannot solve. There is nothing very difficult about 
them ; and it is a wonder that he should have so presented 
them. Following the passage — which is here quoted — will 
be found what appear simple and easy solutions. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 91 

" But (to say nothing of remoter difficulties) — (1) how 
liberty can be conceived, supposing always a plurality of 
modes of activity, without a knowledge of that plurality ; — 

(2) how a faculty can resolve to act by preference in a par- 
ticular manner, and not determine itself by final causes ; — 

(3) how intelligence can influence a blind power, without 
operating as an efficient cause ; — (4) or how, in fine, moral- 
ity can be founded on a liberty which at best only escapes 
necessity by taking refuge with chance ; — these are prob- 
lems which M. Cousin, in none of his works, has stated, and 
which we are confident he is unable to solve." 

1. Liberty cannot be conceived. It must be intuited. 
There is " a plurality of modes," and there is " a knowl- 
edge of that plurality." 2. "A faculty" cannot resolve 
to act ; cannot have a preference ; and cannot determine 
itself at all. Only a spiritual person can resolve, can have 
a preference, can determine. 3. Intelligence cannot in- 
fluence. Blind power cannot be influenced. Only a spir- 
itual person can be influenced, and he by object through 
the intelligence as medium, and only he can be an efficient 
cause. 4. Morality cannot " be founded on a liberty, which 
only escapes necessity by taking refuge with chance ; " and, 
what is more, such a liberty is impossible, and to speak of it 
as possible is absurd. What vitiates the processes of thought 
of the Limitists so largely, crops out very plainly here : 
viz., the employment both in thinking and expressions of fac- 
ulties, capacities, and qualities, as if they possessed all the 
powers of persons. This habit is thoroughly erroneous, and 
destructive of truth. The truth desired to answer this whole 
passage, may be stated in exact terms thus : The infinite and 
absolute spiritual Person, the ultimate and indestructible, and 
indivisible and composite unit, possesses as a necessary qual- 
ity of personality pure liberty ; which is freedom from com- 
pulsion or restraint in the choice of one of two possible ends. 
This Person intuits a multitude of modes of activity. He 
possesses also perfect wisdom, which enables him, having 



92 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

chosen the right end, to determine with unerring accuracy 
which one of all the modes of activity is the best to secure 
the end. Involved in the choice of the end, is the determi- 
nation to put in force the best means for securing that end. 
Hence this Person decides that the best mode shall be. He 
also possesses all-power: This is his endowment, not that 
of his intelligence. The intelligence is not person, but fac- 
ulty in the person. So is it with the power. So then this 
Person, intuiting through his intelligence what is befitting 
his dignity, puts forth, in accordance therewith, his power; 
and is efficient cause. Such a being is neither under neces- 
sity nor chance. He is not under necessity, because there 
is no constraint which compels him to choose the right 
end, rather than the wrong one. He is not under chance, 
because he is certain which is the best mode of action to 
gain the end chosen. In this distinction between ends and 
modes of activity, which has been so clearly set forth by 
Rev. Mark Hopkins, D. D., and in the motions of spir- 
itual persons in each sphere, lie the ground for answering 
all difficulties raised by the advocates of necessity or chance. 
With these remarks we close the discussion of Hamilton's 
philosophical system, and proceed to take up the teachings of 
his followers. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 93 



REVIEW OF "LIMITS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT." 

This volume is one which will always awaken in the mind 
of the candid and reflective reader a feeling of profound 
respect. The writer is manifestly a deeply religious man. 
The book bears the marks of piety, and an earnest search 
after the truth respecting that august Being whom its author 
reverentially worships. However far wrong we may believe 
him to have gone in his speculative theory, his devout spirit 
must ever inspire esteem. Though it is ours to criticize and 
condemn the intellectual principles upon which his work is 
based, we cannot but desire to be like him, in rendering 
solemn homage to the Being he deems inscrutable. 

In proceeding with our examination, all the defects which 
were formerly noticed as belonging to the system of the 
Limitists will here be found plainly observable. Following 
his teacher, Mr. Mansel holds the Understanding to be the 
highest faculty of the human intellect, and the consequent 
corollary that a judgment is its highest form of knowledge. 
The word " conceive " he therefore uses as expressive of the 
act of the mind in grasping together various marks into a 
concept, w T hen that word and act of mind are utterly irrele- 
vant to the object to which he applies them ; and hence they 
can have no meaning as used. We shall see him speak 
of "starting from the divine, and reasoning down to the 
human " ; or of " starting from the human, and reasoning up 
to the divine " ; where, upon the hypothesis that the two are 
entirely diverse, no reasoning process, based upon either one, 
can reach the other. On the other hand, if any knowledge 
of God is possible to the created mind, it is only on the 
ground that there is a similarity, an exact likeness in certain 



94 KNOW THE TRUTH* 

respects, between the two ; in other words, that the Creator 
plainly declared a simple fact, in literal language, when he 
said, " God made man in his own image." If man's mind is 
wholly unlike God's mind, he cannot know truth as God 
knows it. And if the human intellect is thus faulty, man 
cannot be the subject of a moral government, for every 
subject of a moral government is amenable to law. In 
order to be so amenable, he must know the law as it is. 
No phantasmagoria of law, no silhouette will do. It must 
be immediately seen, and known to be binding. Truth 
is one. He, then, who sees it as it is, and knows it to be 
binding, sees it as God sees it, and feels the same obliga- 
tion that God feels. And such an one must man be if he is 
a moral agent. Whether he is such an agent or not, we will 
not argue here ; since all governments and laws of society 
are founded upon the hypothesis that he is, it may well be 
assumed as granted. 

Of the " three terms, familiar as household words," which 
Mr. Mansel, in his second lecture, proceeds to examine, it is 
to be said, that " First Cause," if properly mentioned at all, 
should have been put last ; and that " Infinite " and " Abso- 
lute " are not pertinent to Cause, but to Person. So then 
when we consider " the Deity as He is," we consider him, not 
as Cause, for this is incidental, but as the infinite and abso- 
lute Person, for these three marks are essential. Further, 
these last-mentioned terms express ideas in the Reason ; 
while the term Cause expresses " an a priori Element of 
connection, and thus a primitive understanding-conception." 
Hardly more satisfactory than his use of the term Cause 
is his definition of the terms absolute and infinite. He 
defines " the Absolute " to be " that which exists in and by 
itself, having no necessary relation to any other Being," 
when it is rather the exclusion of the possibility of any other 
Being. Again, he defines " the Infinite " to be " that which 
is free from all possible limitation ; that than which a greater 
is inconceivable; and which, consequently, can receive no 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 95 

additional attribute or mode of existence which it had not 
from all eternity." " That which " means the thing which, 
for which is neuter. Mr. Hansel's infinite is, then, the Thing. 
This Thing " is free from all possible limitation." How can 
that be when the Being he thus defines is, must be, neces- 
sarily existent, and so is bound by one of the greatest of lim- 
itations, the inability to cease to be. But some light may 
be thrown upon his use of the term "limitation" by the 
subsequent portions of his definition. The Thing " which is 
free from all possible limitation " is " that than which a 
greater is inconceivable." Horeover, this greatest of all 
possible things possesses all possible " attributes," and is in 
every possible " mode of existence " " from all eternity." 
Respecting the phrase " than which a greater is inconceiv- 
able," two suppositions may be made. Either there may be 
a thing " greater " than, and diverse from, all other things ; 
or there may be a thing greater than, and including all, other 
things. Probably the latter is Mr. Hansel's thought; but 
it is Haterialistic Pantheism. This Being must be in every 
" mode of existence " " from all eternity." Personality is a 
" mode of existence " ; therefore this Being must forever 
have been in that mode. But impersonality is also a mode 
of existence, therefore this Being must forever have been in 
that mode. Yet again these two modes are contradictory 
and mutually exclusive ; then this Being must have been 
from all eternity in two contradictory and mutually exclusive 
modes of existence ! Is further remark necessary to show 
that Mr. Hansel's definition is thoroughly vitiated by the 
understanding-conception that infinity is amount, and is, 
therefore, utterly worthless ? Can there be a thing so great 
as to be without limits ? Has greatness anything to do with 
infinity? Hanifestly not. It becomes necessary, then, to 
recur to and amplify those definitions which we have already 
given to the terms he uses. 

Absoluteness and infinity are qualities of the necessary 
Being. 



96 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

Absoluteness is that quality of the necessary Being by 
which he is endowed with self-existence, self-dependence, and 
totality. Or in other words, having this quality, he is wholly 
independent of any other being ; and also the possibility of 
the existence of any other independent Being is excluded ; 
and so he is the Complete, the Final, upon whom all possible 
beings must depend. 

Infinity is that quality of the necessary Being which gives 
him universality in the totality. It expresses the fact, that 
he possesses all possible endowments in perfection. 

Possessing these qualities, that Being is free from any ex- 
ternal restraint or limitation ; but those restraints and lim- 
itations, which his very constituting elements themselves im- 
pose, are not removed by these qualities. For instance, the 
possession of Love, Mercy, Justice, Wisdom, Power, and the 
like, are essential to God's entirety ; and the possession of 
them in perfect harmony is essential to his perfectness in the 
entirety. This fact of perfect harmony, exact balance, bars 
him from the undue exercise of any one of his attributes ; or, 
concisely, his perfection restrains him from being imperfect. 
We revert, then, to the fundamental distinction, attained here- 
tofore, between improper limitations, or those which are in- 
volved in perfection ; and proper limitations, or those which 
are involved in deficiency and dependence ; and applying it 
here, we see that those limitations, which we speak of as be- 
longing to God, are not indicative of a lack, but rather are 
necessarily incidental to that possession of all possible perfec- 
tion which constitutes him the Ultimate. 

In this view infinity can have no relevancy to " number." 
It is not that God has one, or one million endowments. It 
asks no question about the number ; and cares not for it. It 
is satisfied in the assertion that he possesses all that are pos- 
sible, and in perfect harmony. It is, further, an idea, not a 
concept. It must be intuited, for it cannot be " conceived." 
No analogy of " line " or " surface " has any pertinence ; be- 
cause these are concepts, belonging wholly in the Understand- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 97 

ing and Sense, where no idea can come. Yet it may be, is, 
the quality of an intelligence endowed with a limited number 
of attributes ; — for there can be no number without limi- 
tation, since the phrase unlimited number is a contradiction 
of terms ; — but this limitation involves no lack, because 
there are no " others," w T hich can be " thereby related to it, 
as cognate or opposite modes of consciousness." Without 
doubt it is, in a certain sense, true, that " the metaphysical 
representation of the Deity, as absolute and infinite, must 
necessarily, as the profoundest metaphysicians have acknowl- 
edged, amount to nothing less than the sum of all reality." 
This sense is that all reality is by him, and for him, and from 
him ; and is utterly dependent upon him. But Hegel's con- 
clusion by no means follows, in which he says : " What kind 
of an Absolute Being is that which does not contain in itself 
all that is actual, even evil included." This is founded upon 
the suppressed premiss, that such a Being must do w 7 hat he 
does, and his creatures must do what they do ; and so evil 
must come. Thus much only can be admitted, and this may 
be admitted, without derogating aught from God's perfect- 
ness : viz., that he sees in the ideals of his Reason how his 
laws may be violated, and so, how sin may and will be in 
this moral system ; but it is a perversion of words to say that 
this knowledge on the part of God is evil. 

The knowing how a moral agent may break the perfect 
law, is involved in the knowing how such agent may keep 
that law. But the fact of the knowledge does not involve 
any whit of consent to the act of violation. On the other 
hand, it may, does, become the ground for the putting forth 
of every wise effort to prevent that act. Again ; evil is pro- 
duced by those persons whom God has made, who violate 
his moral laws. He being perfectly wise and perfectly good, 
for perfectly wise and good reasons sustains them in the 
ability to sin. There can be, in the nature of things, no 
persons at all, without this ability to sin. But God does not 
direct them to sin ; neither when they do sin does anv stain 
7 



yb KNOW THE TRUTH. 

fall upon him for sustaining their existence during their sin- 
ning. That definition of the term absolute, upon which 
Hegel bases his assertion, is one fit only for the Sense and 
Understanding ; as if God was the physical sum of all exist- 
ence. It is Materialistic Pantheism. But by observing the 
definitions and distinctions, which have been heretofore laid 
down, it may be readily seen how an actual mode of exist- 
ence, as that of finite person, may be denied to God, and no 
lack be indicated thereby. Hegel's blasphemy may, then, 
be answered as follows: God is the infinite and absolute 
spiritual Person. Personality is the form of his being. The 
form cannot be empty. Organized essence fills the form. 
Infinity and absoluteness are qualities of the Person as thus 
organized. The quality of absoluteness, for instance, as 
transfusing the essence, is the endowment of pure indepen- 
dence, and involves the exclusion of the possibility of any 
other independent Being, and the possession of the ability to 
create every possible dependent being. In so far, then, as 
Hegel's assertion means that no being can exist, and do evil, 
except he is created and sustained by the Deity, it is true. 
But in so far as it means — and this is undoubtedly what 
Hegel did mean — that God must be the efficient author of 
sin, that, forced by the iron rod of Fate, he must produce 
evil, the assertion is utterly false, and could only have been 
uttered by one who, having dwelt all his life in the gloomy 
cave of the Understanding, possessed not even a tolerably 
correct notion of the true nature of the subject he had in 
hand, — the character of God. From the above consider- 
ations it is apparent that all the requirements of the Reason 
are fulfilled when it is asserted that all things — the Universe 
— are dependent upon God ; and he is utterly independent. 
The paragraphs next succeeding, which have been quoted 
with entire approbation by Mr. Herbert Spencer, are thor- 
oughly vitiated by their author's indefensible assumption, 
that cause is " indispensable " to our idea of the Deity. 
As was remarked above, the notion of cause is incidental. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 99 

The Deity may or may not become a cause, as he shall 
decide. But he has no choice as to whether he shall be 
a person or not. Hence we may freely admit that " the 
cause, as such, exists only in relation to its effect : the cause 
is a cause of the effect ; the effect is an effect of the 
cause." It is also true that " the conception " — idea — " of 
the Absolute implies a possible existence out of all rela- 
tion." The position we have taken is in advance of this, 
for we say, involves an actual existence out of all relation. 
Introducing, then, not " the idea of succession in time," but 
the idea of the logical order, we rightly say, " the Absolute 
exists first by itself, and afterwards becomes a Cause." Nor 
are we here u checked by the third conception, that of the 
Infinite." " Causation is a possible mode of existence," and 
yet " that which exists without causing" is infinite. How is 
this ? It is thus. Infinity is the universality of perfect en- 
dowment. Now, taking as the point of departure the first 
creative nisus or effort of the Deity, this is true. Before 
that act he was perfect in every possible endowment, and 
accorded his choice thereto. He was able to create, but did 
not, for a good and sufficient reason. In and after that act, 
he was still perfect as before. That act then involved no 
essential change in God. But he was in one mode of being 
before, and in another mode of being in and after that act. 
Yet he was equally perfect, and equally blessed, before as 
after. What then follows ? This : that there was some good 
and sufficient reason why before that act he should be a 
potential creator, and in that act he should become an actual 
creator : and this reason preserves the perfection, t. e. the 
infinity of God, equally in both modes. When, then, Mr. 
Mansel says, " if Causation is a possible mode of existence, 
that which exists without causing is not infinite, that which 
becomes a cause has passed beyond its former limits," his 
utterance is prompted by that pantheistic understanding- 
conception of God, which thinks him the sum of all that 
was, and is, and ever shall be, or can be ; and that in all this, 



100 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

T 

he is actual. On the other hand, as we have seen, all that 
is required to fulfil the idea of infinity is, that the Being, 
whom it qualifies, possesses all fulness, has all the forms and 
springs of being in himself. It is optional with him whether 
he will create or not ; and his remaining out of all relation, 
or his creating a Universe, and thus establishing relations to 
and for himself, in no way affect his essential nature, i. e. 
his infinity. He is a person, possessing all possible endow- 
ments, and in this does his infinity consist. In this view, 
" creation at any particular moment of time " is seen to be the 
only possible hypothesis by which to account for the Uni^ 
verse. Such a Person, the necessary Being, must have been 
in existence before the Universe ; and his first act in pro- 
ducing that Universe would mark the first moment of time. 
No " alternative of Pantheism " is, can be, presented to the 
advocates of this theory. On the other hand, that scheme 
is seen to be both impossible and absurd. 

One cannot disagree with Mr. Mansel, when in the next 
paragraph he says, that, " supposing the Absolute to become 
a cause, it will follow that it operates by means of free will 
and consciousness." But the difficulties which he then 
raises lie only in the Understanding, and may be explained 
thus. Always in God's consciousness the subject and object 
are identical. All that God is, is always present to his Eye. 
Hence all relations always appear subordinate to, and de- 
pendent upon him ; and it is a misapprehension of the true 
idea to suppose, that any relation which falls in idea within 
him, and only becomes actual at his will, is any proper lim- 
itation. Both subject and object are thus absolute, being 
identical; and yet there is no contradiction. 

The difficulty is further raised that there cannot be in the 
absolute Being any interrelations, as of attributes among 
themselves, or of attributes to the Being. This arises from 
an erroneous definition of the term absolute. The definition 
heretofore given in this treatise presents no such difficulty. 
The possession of these attributes and interrelations is es- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 101 

sential to the exclusion by their possessor of another inde- 
pendent Being ; and it is a perversion to so use a quality 
which is essential to a being, that it shall militate against the 
consistency of his being what he must be. If then " the 
almost unanimous voice of philosophy, in pronouncing that 
the absolute is both one and simple," uses the term " simple " 
in the same sense that it would have when applied to the idea 
of moral obligation, viz., that it is unanalyzable, then that 
voice is wrong, just as thoroughly as the voice of antiquity 
in favor of the Ptolemaic system of Astronomy was wrong ; 
and is to be treated as that was. On such questions opinions 
have no weight. The search is after a knowledge which is 
sure, and which every man may have within himself. We 
land, then, in no " inextricable dilemma." The absolute 
Person we see to be conscious ; and to possess complexity 
in unity, universality in totality. By an immediate intui- 
tion we know him as primarily out of all relation, plurality, 
difference, and likeness ; and yet as having, of his own self, 
established the Universe, which is still entirely dependent 
upon him ; from which he differs, and with which he is not 
identified. 

Again Mr. Mansel says : ei A mental attribute to be con- 
ceived as infinite, must be in actual exercise on every pos- 
sible object : otherwise it is potential only, with regard to 
those on which it is not exercised ; and an unrealized poten- 
tiality is a limitation." With our interpretation the asser- 
tion is true and contains no puzzle. Every mental attribute 
of the Deity is most assuredly " in actual exercise," upon 
every one of its " possible objects " as ideas. But the ob- 
jects are not therefore actual. Neither is there any need 
that they should ever become so. He sees them just as 
clearly, and knows them just as thoroughly as ideals, as he 
does as actual objects. All ideal objects are "unrealized 
potentialities " ; and yet they are the opposite of limitations 
proper. But this sentence, as an expression of the thought 
which Mr. Mansel seemingly wished to convey, is vitiated 



102 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

by the presence of that understanding-conception that infin- 
ity is amount, which must be actual. Once regard infin- 
ity as quality of the necessarily existent Person, and it 
directly follows that this or that act, of that Person, in no 
way disturbs that infinity. The quality conditions the 
acting being ; but the act of that being cannot limit the 
quality. The quality is, that the act may be ; not the re- 
verse. Hence the questions arising from the interrelations 
of Power and Goodness, Justice and Mercy, are solved at 
once. Infinity as quality, not amount, pervades them all, 
and holds them all in perfect harmony, adjusting each to 
each, in a melody more beautiful than that of the spheres. 
Even " the existence of Evil " is " compatible with that of" 
this " perfectly good Being." He does not will that it shall 
be ; neither does he will that it shall not be. If he willed 
that it should not be, and it was, then he would be " thwart- 
ed " ; but only on such a hypothesis can the conclusion fol- 
low. But he does will that certain creatures shall be, who, 
though dependent upon him for existence and sustenance, 
are, like him, final causes, — the final arbiters of their own 
destinies, who in the choice of ends are unrestrained, and 
may choose good or ill. He made these creatures, knowing 
that some of them would choose wrong, and so evil would 
be : but he did not will the evil. He only w T illed the con- 
ditions upon which evil was possible, and placed all proper 
bars to prevent the evil ; and the a priori facts of his immu- 
table perfection in endowments, and of his untarnished holi- 
ness, are decisive of the consequent fact, that, in willing those 
conditions, God did the very best possible deed. If it be 
further asserted that the fact, that the Being who possesses 
all possible endowments in perfection could not wisely pre- 
vent sin, is a limitation ; and, further, that it were better to 
have prevented sin by an unwise act than to have permitted 
it by a wise act ; it can only be replied : This is the same 
as to say, that it is essential to God's perfection that he be 
imperfect ; or, that it was better for the perfect Being to 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 103 

violate his Self than to permit sin. If any one in his think- 
ing chooses to accept of such alternatives, there remains no 
ground of argument with him ; but only " a certain fearful 
looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall 
devour the adversary." 

Carrying on his presentation of difficulties, Mr. Mansel 
further remarks : " Let us however suppose for an instant, 
that these difficulties are surmounted, and the existence of 
the Absolute securely established on the testimony of reason. 
Still we have not succeeded in reconciling this idea with 
that of a Cause : we have done nothing towards explaining 
how the absolute can give rise to the relative, the infinite to 
the finite. If the condition of causal activity is a higher 
state than that of quiescence, the absolute, whether acting 
voluntarily or involuntarily, has passed from a condition of 
comparative imperfection to one of comparative perfection ; 
and therefore was not originally perfect. If the state of 
activity is an inferior state to that of quiescence, the Abso- 
lute, in becoming a cause, has lost its original perfection." 
On this topic we can but repeat the argument heretofore 
adduced. Let the supposition be entertained that perfection 
does not belong to a state, but to God's nature, to what God 
is, as ground for what God does, and standing in the logical 
order before his act ; and it will directly appear that a state 
of quiescence or a state of activity in no way modifies his 
perfection. What God is, remains permanent and perfect, 
and his acts are only manifestations of that permanent and 
perfect. It follows, then, taking the first moment of time as 
the point of departure, that, before that point, God was in a 
state of complete blessedness, and that after that point he 
was also in such a state ; and, further, that while these two 
states are equal, there is not " complete indifference," be- 
cause there was a reason, clearly seen by the Divine mind, 
w r hy the passage from quiescence to activity should be when 
it was, and as it was, and that this reason having been ac- 
knowledged in his conduct, gives to the two states equality, 
and yet differentiates the one from the other. 



104 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

"Again, how can the Relative be conceived as coming 
into being ? " It cannot be conceived at all. The faculty 
of the mind by which it forms a concept — the discursive 
Understanding — is impotent to conceive what cannot be 
conceived — the act of creation. The changes of matter 
can be concluded into a system, but not the power by which 
the matter came to be, and the changes were produced. If 
the how is known at all, it must be seen. The laws of the 
process must be intuited, as also the process as logically 
according with those laws. The following is believed to be 
an intelligible account of the process, and an answer to the 
above question. The absolute and infinite Person possesses 
as a priori organic elements of his being, all possible endow- 
ments in perfect harmony. Hence all laws, and all possible 
combinations of laws, are at once and always present before 
the Eye of his Reason, which is thus constituted Universal 
Genius. These combinations may be conveniently named 
ideal forms. They arise spontaneously, being in no way 
dependent upon his will, but are rather a priori conditional 
of any creative activity. So, too, they harmoniously arrange 
themselves into systems, — archetypes of what may be, 
some of which may appear nobler, and others inferior. This 
Person, being such as we have stated, possesses also as en- 
dowment all power, and thereby excludes the possibility of 
there being any " other " power. This power is adequate to 
do all that power can do, — to accomplish all that lies within 
the province of power. So long as the Person sees fit not 
to exert his power, his ideal forms will be only ideals, and 
the power will be simply power. But whenever he shall see 
fit to send forth his power, and organize it according to the 
ideal forms, the Universe will become. In all this the Per- 
son, " of his own will," freely establishes whatever his unerr- 
ing wisdom shows is most worthy of his dignity ; and so the 
actualities and relations which he thus ordains are no proper 
limit or restraint, for they in no way lessen his fulness, but 
are only a manifestation of that fulness, — a declaration of 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 105 

his glory. In a word, Creation is that executive act of God 
by which he combines with his power that ideal system which 
he had chosen because best, or it is the organization of ample 
power according to perfect law. If one shall now ask, " How 
could he send forth the power ? " it is to be replied that the 
question is prompted by the curiosity of the " flesh," man's 
animal nature ; and since no representation — picture — can 
be made, no answer can be furnished. It is not needed to 
know how God is, or does anything, but only that he does it. 
All the essential requirements of the problem are met when 
it is ascertained in the light of the Eeason, that all fulness is 
in God, that from this fulness he established all other beings 
and their natural relations, and that no relation is imposed 
upon him by another. The view thus advanced avoids the 
evil of the understanding-conception, that creation is the 
bringing of something out of nothing. There is an actual 
self-existent ground, from which the Universe is produced. 
Neither is the view pantheistic, for it starts with the a priori 
idea of an absolute and infinite Person who is " before all 
things, and by whom all things consist," — who organizes his 
own power in accordance with his own ideals, and thus pro- 
duces the Universe, and all this by free will in self-conscious- 
ness. 

On page eighty-four, in speaking " of the atheistic alter- 
native, Mr. Mansel makes use of the following language : 
" A limit is itself a relation ; and to conceive a limit as such, 
is virtually to acknowledge the existence of a correlative on 
the other side of it." Upon reading this sentence, some 
sensuous form spontaneously appears in the Sense. Some 
object is conceived, and something outside it, that bounds it. 
But let the idea be once formed of a Being who possesses 
all limitation within himself, and for whom there is no 
" other side," nor any " correlative," and the difficulty vanishes. 
We do not seek to account for sensuous objects. It is pure 
Spirit whom we consider. We do not need to form a con- 
cept of " a first moment in time," or " a first unit of space/' 



106 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

nor could we if we w r ould. To do so would be for the faculty 
which forms concepts to transcend the very laws of its or- 
ganization. What we need is, to see the fact that a Spirit 
is, who, possessing personality as form, and absoluteness and 
infinity as qualities, thereby contains all limits and the 
ground of all being in himself, and antithetical to whom is 
only negation. 

From the ground thus attained there is seen to result, not 
the dreary Sahara of interminable contradictions, but the fair 
land of harmonious consistency. A Spirit, sole, personal, 
self-conscious, the absolute and infinite Person, is the Being 
we seek and have found ; and upon such a Being the soul 
of man may rest with the unquestioning trust of an infant 
in its mother's arms. One cannot pass by unnoticed the 
beautiful spirit of religious reverence which shines through 
the closing paragraphs of this lecture. It is evident with 
what dissatisfaction the writer view r s the sterile puzzles of 
which he has been treating, and what a relief it is to turn 
from them to " the God who is ' gracious and merciful, slow 
to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth Him of the 
evil.' " The wonder is, that he did not receive that presen- 
tation which his devout spirit has made, as the truth — which 
it is — and say, " I will accept this as final. My definitions 
and deductions shall accord with this highest revelation. 
This shall be my standard of interpretation." Had he done 
so, far other, and, as it is believed, more satisfactory and 
truthful would have been the conclusions he would have 
given us. 

In his third Lecture Mr. Mansel is occupied with an ex- 
amination of the human nature, for the purpose, if possible, 
of finding " some explanation of the singular phenomenon 
of human thought," which he has just developed. At the 
threshold of the investigation the fact of consciousness ap- 
pears, and he begins the statement of its conditions in the 
following language : " Now, in the first place, the very con- 
ception of Consciousness, in whatever mode it may be mani- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 107 

fested, necessarily implies distinction between one object and 
another. To be conscious, we must be conscious of some- 
thing; and that something can only be known as that which 
it is, by being distinguished from that which it is not." In 
this statement Mr. Mansel unconsciously assumes as settled, 
the very question at issue ; for, the position maintained by 
one class of writers is, that in certain of our mental opera- 
tions, viz., in intuitions, the mind sees a simple truth, idea, 
first principle, as it is, in itself, and that there is no distinc- 
tion in the act of knowledge. It is unquestionably true that, 
in the examination of objects in the Sense, and the conclu- 
sion of judgments in the Understanding, no object can come 
into consciousness without implying a " distinction between 
one object and another." But it is also evident that a first 
truth, to be known as such, must be intuited — seen as it is in 
itself; and so directly known to have the qualities of neces- 
sity and universality which constitute it a first truth. Of 
this fact Sir William Hamilton seems to have been aware, 
when he denied the actuality of the Eeason, — perceiving, 
doubtless, that only on the ground of such a denial was his 
own theory tenable. But if it shall be admitted, as it would 
seem it must be, that men have necessary and universal con- 
victions, then it must also be admitted that these convictions 
are not entertained by distinguishing them from other mental 
operations, but that they are seen of themselves to be true ; 
and thus it appears that there are some modes of conscious- 
ness which do not imply the " distinction " claimed. The 
subsequent sentences seem capable of more than one inter- 
pretation. If the author means that " the Infinite " cannot 
be infinite without he is also finite, so that all distinction 
ceases, then his meaning is both pantheistic and contradic- 
tory ; for the word infinite has no meaning, if it is not the 
opposite of finite, and to identify them is undoubtedly Pan- 
theism. Or if he means " that the Infinite cannot be distin- 
guished " as independent, from the Finite as independent, and 
thus, as possessing some quality w T ith which it was not en- 



108 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

dowed by the infinite Person, then there can be no doubt of 
his correctness. But if, as would seem, his idea of infinity is 
that of amount, is such that it appears inconsistent, contra- 
dictory, for the infinite Person to retain his infinity, and still 
create beings who are really other than himself, and possess- 
ing, as quality, finiteness, which he cannot possess as quality, 
then is his idea of what infinity is wrong. Infinity is quality, 
and the capacity to thus create is essential to it. All that 
the Peason requires is, that the finite be created by and 
wholly dependent upon the infinite Person ; then all the re- 
lations and conditions are only improper, — such as that Per- 
son has established, and which, therefore, in no way diminish 
his glory or detract from his fulness. When, then, Mr. Man- 
sel says, " A consciousness of the Infinite, as such, thus 
necessarily involves a self-contradiction, for it implies the 
recognition, by limitation and difference, of that which can 
only be given as unlimited and indifferent," it is evident that 
he uses the term infinite to express the understanding-con- 
ception of unlimited amount, which is not relevant here, 
rather than the reason-idea of universality which is not con- 
tradictory to a real distinction between the Infinite and finite. 
There is also involved the unexpressed assumption that we 
have no knowledge except of the limited and different, or, 
in other words, that the Understanding is the highest faculty 
of the mind. It has already been abundantly shown that 
this is erroneous, — that the Peason knows its objects in 
themselves, as out of all relation, plurality, difference, or 
likeness. Dropping now the abstract term u the infinite," 
and using the concrete and proper form, we may say : 

We are conscious of infinity, i. e. we are conscious that we 
see with the eye of Peason infinity as a simple, a priori idea ; 
and that it is quality of the Deity. 

2. We are conscious of the infinite Person ; in that we are 
conscious, that we see with the eye of Peason the complex a 
priori idea of a perfect Person possessing independence and 
universality as qualities of his Self. But we are not con- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 109 

scious of him in that we exhaustively comprehend him. As 
is said elsewhere, we know that he is, and to a certain ex- 
tent, but not wholly what he is. 

In further discussing this question Mansel is guilty of 
another grave psychological error. He says, " Consciousness 
is essentially a limitation, for it is the determination to one 
actual out of many possible modifications." There is no truth 
in this sentence. Consciousness is not a limitation ; it is not 
a determination ; it is not a modification. It may be well to 
state here certain conclusions on this assertion, which will be 
brought out in the fuller discussion of it, when we come to 
speak of Mr. Spencer's book. Consciousness is one, and 
retains that oneness throughout all modifications. These oc- 
cur in the unity as items of experience affect it. Doubtless 
Dr. Hickok's illustration is the best possible. Consciousness 
is the light in which a spiritual person sees the modifications 
of himself, t. e. the activity of his faculties and capacities. 
Like Space, only in a different sphere, it is an illimitable 
indivisible unity, which is, that all limits may be in it — that 
all objects may come into it. If, then, only one modification 
— object — comes into it at a time, this is because the facul- 
ties which see in its light are thus organized ; — the being to 
whom it belongs is partial ; but there is nothing pertaining 
to consciousness as such, which constitutes a limit, — which 
could bar the infinite Person from seeing all things at once 
in its light. This Person, then, so far as known, must be 
known as an actual absolute, infinite Spirit, and hence no 
" thing " ; and further as the originator and sustainer of all 
" things" — which, though dependent on him, in no way take 
aught from him. He may be known also, as potentially 
everything, in the sense that all possible combinations, or 
forms of objects, must ever stand as ideals in his Reason ; and 
he can, at his will, organize his power in accordance there- 
with. But he rnu^t also be known as free to create or not to 
create ; and that the fact that many potential forms remain 
such, in no way detracts from his infinity. 



110 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

Another of Mr. Mansel's positions involves conclusions 
which, we feel assured, he will utterly reject. He says, " If 
all thought is limitation, — if whatever we conceive is, by the 
very act of conception, regarded as finite, — the infinite, from 
a human point of view, is merely a name for the absence of 
those conditions under which thought is possible." " From 
a human point of view," and we, at least, can take no other, 
what follows ? That the Deity can have no thoughts ; cannot 
know what our thoughts are, or that we think. But three 
suppositions can be made. Either he has no thoughts, is 
destitute of an intellect ; or his intellect is Universal Genius, 
and he sees all possible objects at once ; or there is a faculty 
different in kind from and higher than the Reason, of which 
we have, can have, no knowledge. The first, though acknowl- 
edged by Hamilton in a passage elsewhere quoted, and logi- 
cally following from the position taken by Mr. Mansel, is so 
abhorrent to the soul that it must be unhesitatingly rejected. 
The second is the position advocated in this treatise. The 
third is hinted at by Mr. Herbert Spencer. We reject this 
third, because the Reason affirms it to be impossible ; and 
because, being unnecessary, by the law of parsimony it 
should not be allowed. To advocate a position of which, in 
the very terms of it, the intellect can have no possible 
shadow of knowledge, is, to say the least, no part of the 
work of a philosopher. " The condition of consciousness is" 
not "distinction" in the understanding-conception of that 
term. So consciousness is not a limitation, though all limits 
when cognized are seen in the light of consciousness. Ac- 
cording to the philosophy we advocate, God is a particular 
being, and is so known ; yet he is not known as " one thing 
out of many," but is known in himself, as being such and 
such, and yet being unique. When Mr. Mansel says, " In 
assuming the possibility of an infinite object of consciousness, 
I assume, therefore, that it is at the same time limited and 
unlimited," he evidently uses those terms with a signification 
pertinent only to the Understanding. He is thinking of 



KNOW THE TRUTH. Ill 

amount under the forms of Space and Time ; and so his re- 
mark has no validity. He who thinks of God rightly, will 
think of him as the infinite and absolute spiritual Person ; 
and will define infinity and absoluteness in accordance there- 
with. 

If the views now advanced are presentations of truth, a 
consistent rationalism must attribute " consciousness to God." 
We are always conscious of " limitation and change/' because 
partiality and growth are organic with us. But we can per- 
ceive no peculiarity in consciousness, which should produce 
such an effect. On the contrary we see, that if a person has 
little knowledge, he will be conscious of so much and no 
more. And if a person has great capabilities, and corre- 
sponding information, he is conscious of just so much. 
Whence, it appears, that the " limitation and change " spring 
from the nature of the constitution, and not from the con- 
sciousness. If, then, there should be one Person who pos- 
sessed the sum of all excellencies, there could arise no reason 
from consciousness why he should not be conscious thereof. 

Mr. Mansel names as the " second characteristic of Con- 
sciousness, that it is only possible in the form of a relation. 
There must be a Subject, or person conscious, and an Object 
or thing of which he is conscious." This utterance, taken in 
the sense which Mr. Mansel wishes to convey, involves the 
denial of consciousness to God. But upon the ground that 
the subject and object in the Deity are always identical the 
difficulty vanishes. But how can man be " conscious of the 
Absolute ? " If by this is meant, have an exhaustive com- 
prehension of the absolute Person, the experience is mani- 
festly impossible. But man may have a certain knowledge, 
that such Person is without knowing in all respects what he is, 
just as a child may know that an apple is, without knowing 
what it is. Again Mr. Mansel uses the terms absolute and 
infinite to represent a simple unanalyzable Being. In this he 
is guilty of personifying an abstract term, and then reasoning 
with regard to the Being as he would with regard to the 



112 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

term. Absoluteness is a simple unanalyzable idea, but it is 
not God ; it is only one quality of God. So with infinity. 
God is universal complexity ; and to reason of him as unan- 
alyzable simplicity is as absurd as to select the color of the 
apple's skin, and call that the apple, and then reason from it 
about the apple. So, then, though man cannot comprehend 
the absolute Person as such, he has a positive idea of abso- 
luteness, and a positive knowledge that the Being is who 
is thus qualified. Upon the subsequent question respecting 
the partiality of our knowledge of the infinite and absolute 
Person, a remark made above may be repeated and ampli- 
fied. We may have a true, clear, thorough knowledge that 
he exists without having an exhaustive knowledge of what 
he is. The former is necessary to us ; the latter impossible. 
So, too, the knowledge by us, of any a priori law, will be ex- 
haustive. Yet while we know that it must be such, and not 
otherwise, it neither follows that we know all other a priori 
laws, nor that we know all the exemplifications of this one. 
And since, as we have heretofore seen, neither absoluteness 
nor infinity relate to number, and God is not material sub- 
stance that can be broken into " parts," but an organized 
Spirit, we see that we may consider the elements of his 
organization in their logical order; and, remembering that 
absoluteness and infinity as qualities pervade all, we may 
examine his nature and attributes without impiety. 

Mr. Mansel says further : u But in truth it is obvious, on 
a moment's reflection, that neither the Absolute nor the In- 
finite can be represented in the form of a whole composed of 
parts." This is tantamount to saying, the spiritual cannot be 
represented under the form of the material — a truth so evi- 
dent as hardly to need so formal a statement. But what the 
Divine means is, that that Being cannot be known as having 
qualities and attributes which may be distinguished in and 
from himself; which is an error. God is infinite. So is his 
Knowledge, his Wisdom, his Holiness, his Love, &c. Yet 
these are distinguished from each other, and from him. All 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 113 

this is consistent, because infinity is quality, and permeates 
them all; and not amount, which jumbles them all into a 
confused, indistinguishable mass. 

In speaking of "human consciousness" as "necessarily 
subject to the law of Time," Mr. Mansel says, " Every ob- 
ject of whose existence we can be in any way conscious is 
necessarily apprehended by us as succeeding in time to some 
former object of consciousness, and as itself occupying a cer- 
tain portion of time." In so far as there is here expressed 
the law of created beings, under which they must see objects, 
the remark is true. But when Mr. Mansel proceeds further, 
and concludes that, because we are under limitation in seeing 
the object, it is under the same limitation, so far as we ap- 
prehend it in being seen, he asserts what is a psychological 
error. To show this, take the mathematical axiom, " Things 
which are equal to the same things, are equal to one an- 
other." Except under the conditions of Time, we cannot see 
this, that is, we do, must, occupy a time in observing it. 
But do we see that the axiom is under any condition of 
Time ? By no means. We see, directly, that it is, must be, 
true, and that in itself it has no relation to Time. It is thus 
absolutely true ; and as one of the ideas of the infinite and 
absolute Person, it possesses these his qualities. We have, 
then, a faculty, the Reason, which, while it sees its objects in 
succession, and so under the law of Time, also sees that 
those objects, whether ideas, or that Being to whom all ideas 
belong, are, in themselves, out of all relation to Time. Thus 
is the created spiritual person endowed ; thus is he like God ; 
thus does he know " the Infinite." Hence, " the command, 
so often urged upon man by philosophers and theologians, 
' In contemplating God, transcend time,' " means, " In all 
your reflections upon God, behold him in his true aspect, in 
the reason-idea, as out of all relation." It is true that " to 
know the infinite " exhaustively, " the human mind must itself 
be infinite." But this knowledge is not required of that 
mind. Only that knowledge is required which is possible, 



114 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

viz., that the Deity is, and what he is, in so far as we are in 
his image. 

Again ; personality is not " essentially a limitation and a 
relation," in the sense that it necessarily detracts aught from 
any being who possesses it. It rather adds, — is, indeed, a 
pure addition. We appear to ourselves as limited and re- 
lated, not because of our personality, but because of our 
finiteness as quality in the personality. 

Hence we not only see no reason why the complete and 
universal Spirit should not have personality, but we see that 
if he was destitute of it, he must possess a lower form of 
being, — since this is the highest possible form, — which 
would be an undoubted limitation ; or, in other words, we 
see that he must be a Person. In what Mr. Mansel subse- 
quently says upon this subject, he presents arguments for the 
personality of God so strong, that one is bewildered with the 
question, " How could he escape the conviction which they 
awaken ? How could he reject the cry of his spiritual na- 
ture, and accept the barren contradictions of his lower 
mind ? " Let us note a few sentences. " It is by conscious- 
ness alone that we know that God exists, or that we are able 
to offer him any service. It is only by conceiving Him as a 
Conscious Being, that we can stand in any religious relation 
to Him at all, — that we can form such a representation of 
Him as is demanded by our spiritual wants, insufficient 
though it be to satisfy our intellectual curiosity." " Person- 
ality comprises all that we know of that which exists ; rela- 
tion to personality comprises all that we know of that which 
seems to exist. And when, from the little world of man's 
consciousness and its objects, we would lift up our eyes to the 
inexhaustible universe beyond, and ask to whom all this is 
related, the highest existence is still the highest personality, 
and the Source of all Being reveals Himself by His name, 
' I AM/ " " It is our duty, then, to think of God as per- 
sonal ; and it is our duty to believe that He is infinite." We 
may at this point quote with profit the words of that Book 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 115 

whose authority Mr. Mansel, without doubt, most heartily 
acknowledges. " And for this cause God shall send them 
strong delusion, that they should believe a lie ; that they all 
might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleas- 
ure in unrighteousness." " I have not written unto you be- 
cause ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and 
that no lie is of the truth." Either God is personal or he is 
not. If he is, then all that we claim is conceded. If he is 
not personal, and "it is our duty to think " of him as per- 
sonal, then it is our duty to think and believe a falsehood. 
This no man, at least neither Mr. Mansel nor any other en- 
lightened man, can bring his mind to accept as a moral law. 
The soul instinctively asserts that obligation lies parallel 
with truth, and "that no lie is of the truth." So, then, there 
can be no duty except where truth is. And the converse 
may also be accepted, viz : Where an enlightened sense of 
duty is, there is truth. When, therefore, so learned and 
truly spiritual a man as Mr. Mansel asserts " that it is our 
duty to think God personal, and believe him infinite," we un- 
hesitatingly accept it as the utterance of a great fundamental 
truth in that spiritual realm which is the highest realm of 
being, and so, as one of the highest truths, and with it we 
accept all its logical consequences. It is a safe rule any- 
where, that if two mental operations seem to clash, and one 
must be rejected, man should cling to, and trust in the 
higher — the teaching of the nobler nature. Thus will we 
do, and from the Divine's own ground will we see the de- 
struction of his philosophy. " It is our duty to think of God 
as personal," because he is personal ; and we know that he 
is personal because it is our duty to think him so. We need 
pay no regard to the perplexities of the Understanding. We 
soar with the eagle above the clouds, and float ever in the 
light of the Sun. The teachings of the Moral Sense are far 
more sure, safe, and satisfactory than any discursions of the 
lower faculty. Therefore it is man's wisdom, in all perplex- 
ity to heed the cry of his highest nature, and determine to 



116 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

stand on its teachings, as his highest knowledge, interpret all 
utterances by this, and reject all which contradict it. At the 
least, the declaration of this faculty is as valid as that of the 
lower, and is to be more trusted in every disagreement, be- 
cause higher. Still further, no man would believe that God, 
in the most solemn, yea, awful moment of his Self-revelation, 
would declare a lie. The bare thought, fully formed, horri- 
fies the soul as a blasphemy of the damned. Yet, in that 
supreme act, in the solitude of the Sinaitic wilderness, to one 
of the greatest, one of the profoundest, most devout of men, 
He revealed Himself by the pregnant words, " I AM " : the 
most positive, the most unquestionable form in which He 
could utter the fact of His personality. This, then, and all 
that is involved in it, we accept as truth ; and all perplexities 
must be interpreted by this surety. 

In summing up the results to which an examination of the 
facts of consciousness conducted him, Mr. Mansel utters the 
following psychological error : "But a limit is necessarily 
conceived as a relation between something within and some- 
thing without itself; and the consciousness of a limit of 
thought implies, though it does not directly present to us, the 
existence of something of which we do not and cannot 
think." Not so ; for a limit may be seen to be wholly 
within the being to whom it belongs, and so not to be " a 
relation between something within and something without 
itself." This is precisely the case with the Deity. All re- 
lations and limits spring from within him, and there is noth- 
ing " without " to establish the relation claimed. This ab- 
sence of all limit from without is rudely expressed in such 
common phrases as this : " It must be so in the nature of 
things" This " nature of things " is, in philosophical lan- 
guage, the system of a priori laws of the Universe, and 
these are necessary ideas in the Divine Reason. It appears, 
then, that what must be in the nature of things, finds its lim- 
its wholly within, and its relations established by the Deity. 

With these remarks the author would close his criticism 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 117 

upon Mr. Mansel's book. We start from entirely different 
bases, and these two systems logically follow from their foun- 
dations. If Sir William Hamilton is right in his psychology, 
his follower is unquestionably right in his deductions. But 
if that psychology is partial, if besides the Understanding 
there is the Reason, if above the judgment stands the intu- 
ition, giving the final standard by which to measure that 
judgment, then is the philosophical system of the Divine ut- 
terly fallacious. The establishment of the validity of the 
Pure Reason is the annihilation of " the Philosophy of the 
Unconditioned.'' On the ground which the author has 
adopted, it is seen that " God is a spirit," infinite, absolute, 
self-conscious, personal ; and a consistent interpretation of 
these terms has been given. We have found that certain 
objects may be seen as out of all relation, plurality, differ- 
ence, or likeness. Consciousness and personality have also 
been found to involve no limit, in the proper sense of that 
term. On the contrary, the one was ascertained to be the 
light in which any or all objects might be seen under condi- 
tions of Time, or at once ; and that this seeing was accord- 
ing to the capacity with which the being was endowed, and 
was not determined by any peculiarity of the consciousness ; 
while the other appeared to be the highest possible form of 
existence, and that also in which God had revealed himself. 
From such a ground it is possible to go forward and con- 
struct a Rational Theology which shall verify by Reason the 
teachings of the Bible. 



118 KNOW THE TRUTH. 



REVIEW OF MR. HERBERT SPENCER'S "FIRST PRIN- 
CIPLES." 

In the criticisms heretofore made, some points, held in com- 
mon by the three writers named early in this work, have 
been, it may be, passed over unnoticed. This was done, 
because, being held in common, it was believed that an ex- 
amination of them, as presented by the latest writer, would 
be most satisfactory. Therefore, what was peculiar in thought 
or expression to Sir Wm. Hamilton or Mr. Mansel, we have 
intended to notice when speaking of those writers. But where 
Mr. Spencer seems to present their very thought as his own, 
it has appeared better to remark upon it in his latest form of 
expression. Mr. Spencer also holds views peculiar to him- 
self. These we shall examine in their place. And for con- 
venience' sake, what we have to say will take the form of a 
running commentary upon those chapters entitled, " Ultimate 
Religious Ideas," " Ultimate Scientific Ideas," " The Rela- 
tivity of all Knowledge," and " The Reconciliation." Before 
entering upon this, however, some general remarks will be 
pertinent. 

1. Like his teachers, Mr. Spencer believes that the Under- 
standing is the highest faculty of the human intellect. This 
is implied in the following sentence : " Those imbecilities of 
the understanding that disclose themselves when we try to 
answer the highest questions of objective science, subjective 
science proves to be necessitated by the laws of that under- 
standing." — First Principles, p. 98. 

His illustrations, also, are all, or nearly all, taken from 
sensuous objects. In speaking of the Universe, evidently the 
material Universe is present to his mind. His questions refer 
to objects of sense, and he shows plainly enough that any 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 119 

attempt to answer them by the Sense or Understanding is 
futile. Hence he concludes that they cannot be answered. 
But those who " know of a surety/' that man is more than 
an animal nature, containing a Sense and an Understanding ; 
that he is also a spiritual person, having an Eye, the pure 
Reason, which can see straight to the central Truth, with a 
clearness and in a light which dims and pales the noonday 
sun, know also that, and how, these difficulties, insoluble to 
the lower faculties, are, in this noble alembic, finally dis- 
solved. 

2. As Mr. Spencer follows his teachers in the psychology 
of man's faculties, so does he also in the use of terms. Like 
them, he employs only such terms as are pertinent to the 
Sense and Understanding. So also with them he is at fault, 
in that he raises questions which no Sense or Understanding 
could suggest even, questions whose very presence are decisive 
that a Pure Reason is organic in man ; and then is guilty of 
applying to them terms entirely impertinent, — terms belong- 
ing only to those lower tribunals before which these questions 
can never come. For instance, he always employs the word 
" conceive" to express the effort of the mind in presenting to 
itself the subjects now under discussion. In some form of 
noun, verb, or adjective, this word seems to have rained upon 
his pages ; while such terms as " infinite period," u infinitely 
divisible," " absolutely incompressible," " infinitesimal," and 
the like, dot them repeatedly. Let us revert, then, a moment 
to the positions attained in an earlier portion of this work. It 
was there found that the word conceive was utterly (irrelevant 
to any subject except to objects of Sense and the Under- 
standing in its work of classifying them, or generalizing from 
them, so, also, with regard to the other terms quoted, it was 
found that they not only presented no object of thought to 
the mind, but that the words had no relation to each other, 
and could not properly be used together. For instance, in- 
finite has no more relation to, and can no more qualify period, 
than the points of the compass are pertinent to, and can 



120 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

qualify the affections. The phrase, infinite period, is simply 
absurd, and so also are the others. The words infinite and 
absolute have nothing to do with amount of any sort. They 
can be pertinent only to God and his a 'priori ideas. Many, 
perhaps most of the criticisms in detail we shall have to make, 
will be based on this single misuse of words ; which yet grows 
naturally out of that denial and perversion of faculties which 
Mr. Spencer, in common with the other Limitist writers, has 
attempted. On the other hand, it is to be remembered, that, 
if we arrive at the truth at all, we must intuit it ; we must 
either see it as a simple a priori idea, or as a logical deduction 
from such ideas. 

3. A third, and graver error on Mr. Spencer's part is, that 
he goes on propounding his questions, and asserting that they 
are insoluble, apparently as unconscious as a sleeper in an 
enchanted castle that they have all been solved, or at least 
that the principles on which it would seem that they could 
be solved have been stated by a man of no mean ability, — 
Dr. Hick ok, — and that until the proposed solutions are 
thoroughly analyzed and shown to be unsound, his own pages 
are idle. He implies that there is no cognition higher than 
a conception, when some very respectable writers have named 
intuitions as incomparably superior. He speaks of the Un- 
derstanding as if it were without question the highest faculty 
of man's intellect, when no less a person than Coleridge said 
it would satisfy his life's labor to have introduced into 
English thinking the distinction between the Understanding, 
as " the faculty judging according to sense," and the Reason, 
as " the power of universal and necessary convictions," which, 
being such, must necessarily rank far above the other. And 
finally he uses the words and phrases above disallowed, and 
the faculties to which they belong, in an attempt to prove, by 
the citation of a few items in an experience, what had already 
been demonstrated by another in a process of as pure reason- 
ing as Calculus. No one, it is believed, can master the volume 
heretofore alluded to, entitled " Rational Psychology," and so 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 121 

appreciate the demonstration therein contained, of the ntter 
incompetency of the Sense or Understanding to solve such 
questions as Mr. Spencer has raised by his incident of the 
partridge, (p. 69,) and the utter irrelevancy to them of the 
efforts of those faculties, without feeling how tame and un- 
satisfactory in comparison is the evidence drawn from a few 
facts in a sensuous experience. One cares not to see a half 
dozen proofs, more or less that a theory is fallacious who has 
learned that, and why, the theory cannot be true. Let us 
now take up in order the chapters heretofore mentioned. 



"ULTIMATE RELIGIOUS IDEAS." 

The summing up of certain reflections with which this 
chapter opens, concludes thus : u But that when our sym- 
bolic conceptions are such that no cumulative or indirect 
processes of thought can enable us to ascertain that there 
are corresponding actualities, nor any predictions be made 
whose fulfilment can prove this, then they are altogether 
vicious and illusive, and in no way distinguishable from pure 
fictions," — p. 29. So far very good ; but his use of it is utterly 
unsound. " And now to consider the bearings of this general 
truth on our immediate topic — Ultimate Religious Ideas." 
But this " general truth " has no bearings upon " ultimate 
religious ideas " ; how then can you consider them ? No ideas, 
and most of all religious ideas, are conceptions, or the results 
of conceptions — or are the products of " cumulative or in- 
direct processes of thought." They are not results or products 
at all. They are organic, are the spontaneous presentation 
of what is inborn, and so must be directly seen to be known 
at all. Man might pile up " cumulative processes of thought " 
for unnumbered ages, and might form most exact conceptions 
of objects of Sense, — conceptions are not possible of others, — 
and he could never creep up to the least and faintest religious 
idea. 



122 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

On the next page, speaking of " suppositions respecting 
the origin of the Universe," Mr. Spencer says, " The deeper 
question is, whether any one of them is even conceivable in 
the true sense of that word. Let us successively test them." 
This is not necessary. It has already been demonstrated 
that a conception, or any effort of the Understanding, cannot 
touch, or have relation to such topics. But it does not follow, 
therefore, that no one of them is cognizable at all ; which he 
implies. Take the abstract notion of self-existence, for ex- 
ample. No " vague symbolic conceptions," or any concep- 
tion at all, of it can be formed. A conception is possible only 
" under relation, difference, and plurality." This is a pure, 
simple idea, and so can only be known in itself by a seeing — 
an immediate intuition. It is seen by itself, as out of all 
relation. It is seen as simple, and so is learned by no dif- 
ference. It is seen as a unit, and so out of all plurality. 
The discursive faculty cannot pass over it, because there are 
in it no various points upon which that faculty may fasten. 
It may, perhaps, better be expressed by the words pure in- 
dependence. Again, it is not properly " existence without a 
beginning," but rather, existence out of all relation to begin- 
ning ; and so it is an idea, out of all relation to those faculties 
which are confined to objects that did begin. Because we 
can " by no mental effort " " form a conception of existence 
without a beginning," it does not follow that we cannot see 
that a Being existing out of all relation to beginning is. " To 
this let us add" that the intuition of such a Being is a com- 
plete u explanation of the Universe," and does make it "easier 
to understand" "that it existed an hour ago, a day ago, a 
year ago " ; for we see that this Being primarily is out of all 
relation to time, that there is no such thing as an " infinite 
period," the phrase being absurd ; but that through all the 
procession of events which we call time he is ; and that before 
that procession began — when there was no time, he was. 
Thus we see that all events are based upon Him who is 
independent ; and that time, in our general use of it, is but 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 123 

the measure of what He produces. We arrive, then, at the 
conclusion that the Universe is not self-existent, not because 
self-existence cannot be object to the human mind, and be 
clearly seen to be an attribute of one Being, but because the 
Universe is primarily object to faculties in that mind, which 
cannot entertain such a notion at all ; and because this notion 
is seen to be a necessary idea in the province of that higher 
faculty which entertains as objects both the idea and the 
Being to whom it primarily belongs. 

The theory that the Universe is self-existent is Pantheism, 
and not the theory that it is self-created, though this latter, 
in Mr. Spencer's definition of it, seems only a phase of the 
other. To say that " self-creation is potential existence 
passing into actual existence by some inherent necessity," is 
only to remove self-existence one step farther back, as he 
himself shows. Potential existence is either no existence at 
all, or it is positive existence. If it is no existence, then we 
have true self-creation ; which is, that out of nothing, and 
with no cause, actual existence starts itself. This is not 
only unthinkable, but absurd. But if potential existence is 
positive, it needs to be accounted for as much as actual. 
While, then, there can be no doubt as to the validity of 
the conclusions to which Mr. Spencer arrives, respecting the 
entire incompetency of the hypotheses of self-existence and 
self-creation, to account for the Universe, the distinction 
made above between self-existence as a true and self-creation 
as a pseudo idea, and the fact that the true idea is a reality, 
should never be lost sight of. By failing to discriminate — 
as in the Understanding he could not do — between them, 
and by concluding both as objects alike impossible to the 
human intellect, and for the same reasons, he has also decided 
that the " commonly received or theistic hypothesis " — creation 
by external agency — is equally untenable. In his exami- 
nation of this, he starts as usual with his ever-present, falla- 
cious assumption, that this is a " conception " ; that it can 
be, is founded upon a " cumulative process of thought, or the 



124 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

fulfilment of predictions based on it." These words, phrases, 
and notions, are all irrelevant. It is not a conception, pro- 
cess, or prediction that we want ; it is a sight Hence, no 
assumptions have to be made or granted. No " proceedings 
of a human artificer " can in the least degree u vaguely sym- 
bolize to us " the " method after which the Universe " was 
" shaped." This differed in kind from all possible human 
methods, and had not one element in common with them. 

Mr. Spencer's remarks at this point upon Space do not 
appear to be well grounded. " An immeasurable void " — 
Space — is not an entity, is no thing, and therefore cannot 
" exist," neither is any explanation for it needed. His ques- 
tion, " how came it so ? " takes, then, this form : How came 
immeasurable nothing to be nothing ? Nothing needs no 
" explanation." It is only some thing which must be accounted 
for. The theory of creation by external agency being, then, 
an adequate one to account for the Universe, supplies the 
following statement. That Being who is primarily out of 
all relation, produced, from himself, and by his immanent 
power, into nothing — Space, room, the condition of material 
existence, — something, matter and the Universe became. 
"The genesis of the universe " having thus been explained 
and seen to be " the result of external agency," we are 
ready to furnish for the question, " how came there to be an 
external agency ? " that true answer, which we have already 
shadowed forth. That pure spiritual Person who is neces- 
sarily existent, or self-existent, i. e. who possesses pure in- 
dependence as an essential attribute, whose being is thus 
fixed, and is therefore without the province of power, is the 
external agency which is needed. This Person, differing in 
kind from the Universe, cannot be found in it, nor concluded 
from it, but can only be known by being seen, and can only 
be seen because man possesses the endowment of a spiritual 
Eye, like in kind to His own All-seeing eye, by which spirit- 
ual things may be discerned. This Person, being thus seen 
immediately, is known in a far more satisfactory mode than 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 125 

he could be by any generalizations of the Understanding, 
could he be represented in these at all. The knowledge of 
Him is, like His self, immutable. We know that we stand 
on the eternal Rock. Our eye is illuminated with the 
unwavering Light which radiates from the throne of God. 
Nor is this any hallucination of the rhapsodist. It is the 
simple experience which every one enjoys who looks at pure 
truth in itself. It is the Pure Reason seeing, by an imme- 
diate intuition, God as pure spirit, revealed directly to itself. 
It is, then, because self-existence is a pure, simple idea, or- 
ganic in man, and seen by him to be an attribute of God, 
that God is known to be the Creator of the Universe. Hav- 
ing attained to this truth, w 7 e readily see that the conclusions 
which Mr. Spencer states on pages 35, 36, as that "self- 
existence is rigorously inconceivable " ; that the theistic hy- 
pothesis equally with the others is " literally unthinkable " ; 
that " our conception of self-existence can be formed only 
by joining with it the notion of unlimited duration through 
past time " ; so far as they imply our destitution of knowl- 
edge on these topics, are the opposite of the facts. We see, 
though w T e cannot "conceive," self-existence. The theistic 
hypothesis becomes, therefore, literally thinkable. We see, 
also, that unlimited duration is an absurdity ; that duration 
must be limited ; and that self-existence involves existence 
out of all relation to duration. 

Mr. Spencer then turns to the nature of the Universe, and 
says : " We find ourselves on the one hand obliged to make 
certain assumptions, and yet, on the other hand, w T e find these 
assumptions cannot be represented in thought." Upon this 
it may be remarked : 

1. What are here called assumptions are properly asser- 
tions, which man makes, and cannot help making, except he 
deny himself ; — necessary convictions, first truths, first prin- 
ciples, a priori ideas. They are organic, and so are the 
foundation of all knowledge. They are not results learned 
from lessons, but are primary, and conditional to an ability 



126 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

to learn. But supposing them to be assumptions, having, at 
most, no more groundwork than a vague guess, there de- 
volves a labor which Mr. Spencer and his coadjutors have 
never attempted, and which, we are persuaded, they would 
find the most difficult of all, viz., to account for the fact of 
these assumptions. For the question is pertinent and urgent ; 

2. How came these assumptions to suggest themselves ? 
Where, for instance, did the notion of self come from ? Ana- 
lyze the rocks, study plants and their growth, become famil- 
iar with animals and their habits, or exhaust the Sense in an 
examination of man, and one can find no notion of self. 
Yet the notion is, and is peculiar to man. How does it 
arise ? Is it " created by the slow action of natural causes ? " 
How comes it to belong, then, to the rudest aboriginal equal- 
ly with the most civilized and cultivated ? Was it u created " 
from nothing or from something? If from something, how 
came that something to be ? We might ask, Does not the 
presentation of any phenomenon involve the actuality of a 
somewhat, in which that phenomenon inheres, and of a re- 
ceptivity by which it is appreciated ? Does not the fact of 
this assumption, as a mental phenomenon, involve the higher , 
fact of some mental ground, some form, some capacity, which 
is both organic to the mind, and organized in the mind, in 
accordance with which the assumption is, and which deter- 
mines what it must be ? Or are we to believe that these 
assumptions are mere happenings, without law, and for which 
no reason can be assigned ? Again we press the question, 
How came these assumptions to suggest themselves ? 

3. " These assumptions cannot be represented in thought." 
If " thought " is restricted to that mental operation of the 
Understanding by which it generalizes in accordance with 
the Sense, the statement is true. But if it is meant, as 
seems to be implied, that the notions expressed in these as- 
sumptions are not, cannot be, clearly and definitely known at 
all by the mind, then it is directly contrary to the truth. 
The ideas presented by the phrases are, as was seen above, 
clear and definite. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 127 

Since Mr. Spencer has quoted in extenso, and with entire 
approbation, what Mr. Mansel says respecting " the Cause, 
the Absolute, and the Infinite," we have placed the full ex- 
amination of these topics in our remarks upon Mr. Mansel's 
writings, and shall set down only a few brief notes here. 

Upon this topic Mr. Spencer admits that " we are obliged 
to suppose some cause " ; or, in other words, that the notion 
of cause is organic. Then we must " inevitably commit our- 
selves to the hypothesis of a First Cause." Then, this First 
Cause " must be infinite." Then, " it must be independent ; " 
u or, to use the established word, it must be absolute." One 
would almost suppose that a rational man penned these 
decisions, instead of one who denies that he has a reason. 
The illusion is quickly dispelled, however, by the objections 
he lifts out of the dingy ground-room of the Understanding. 
It is curious to observe in these pages a fact which we have 
noticed before, in speaking of Sir William Hamilton's works, 
viz : how, on the same page, and in the same sentence, the 
workings of the Understanding and Reason will run along 
side by side, the former all the while befogging and hinder- 
ing the latter. Mr. Spencer's conclusions which we have 
quoted, and his objections which we are to answer, are a 
striking exemplification of this. Frequently in his remarks 
he uses the words limited and unlimited, as synonymous with 
finite and infinite, when they are not so, and cannot be used 
interchangeably with propriety. The former belong wholly 
in the Sense and Understanding. The latter belong wholly 
in the Pure Reason. The former pertain to material objects, 
to mental images of them, or to number. The latter qualify 
only spiritual persons, and have no pertinence elsewhere. 
Limitation is the conception of an object as bounded. Illim- 
itation is the conception of an object as without boundaries. 
Rigidly, it is a simple negation of boundaries, and gives 
nothing positive in the Concept. Finity or finiteness corre- 
sponds in the Reason to limitation in the Sense and Under- 
standing. It does not refer to boundaries at all. It belongs 



128 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

only to created spiritual persons, and expresses the fact that 
they are partial, and must grow and learn. Only by its 
place in the antithesis does infinity correspond in the Reason 
to illimitation in the lower faculties. It is positive, and is 
that quality of the pure spirit which is otherwise known as 
universality. It expresses the idea of all possible endowments 
in perfect harmony. From his misuse of these terms Mr. 
Spencer is led to speak in an irrelevant manner upon the 
question, " Is the First Cause finite or infinite ? " He uses 
words and treats the whole matter as if it were a question of 
material substance, which might be " bounded," with a " re- 
gion surrounding its boundaries," and the like, which are as 
out of place as to say white love or yellow kindness. His 
methods of thought on these topics are also gravely erro- 
neous. He attempts an analysis by the logical Understand- 
ing, where a synthesis by the Reason is required, — a syn- 
thesis which has already been given by our Creator to man 
as an original idea. It is not necessary to examine some 
limited thing, or all limited things, and wander around their 
boundaries to learn that the First Cause is infinite. We 
need to make no discursus, but only to look the idea of first 
cause through and through, and thoroughly analyze it, to find 
all the truth. By such a process we would find all that Mr. 
Spencer concedes that " we are obliged to suppose," and fur- 
ther, that such a being must be self-existent. And this con- 
viction would be so strong that the mind would rest itself in 
this decision : "A thousand phantasmagoria of the imagina- 
tion may be wrong," says the soul, " but this I know must be 
true, or there is no truth in the Universe." 

One sentence in the paragraph now under consideration 
deserves special notice. It is this. " But if we admit that 
there can be some thing uncaused, there is no reason to as- 
sume a cause for anything." This " assumes " the truth of 
a major premise all things are substantially alike. If the 
word " thing " is restricted to its exact limits, — objects of 
sense, — then the sentence pertains wholly to the Sense and 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 129 

Understanding, and is true. But if, as it would seem, the 
implication is meant that there are no other entities which 
can be object to the mind except such " things," then it is a 
clear petitio principii. For the very question at issue is, 
whether, in fact, there is not one entity — " thing " — which 
so differs in kind from all others, that it is uncaused, i. e. 
self-existent ; and whether the admission that that entity 
is uncaused does not, because of this seen difference, sat- 
isfy the mind, and furnish a reasonable ground on which to 
account for the subordinate causes which we observe by the 
Sense. 

In speaking of the First Cause as " independent," he says, 
" but it can have no necessary relation within itself. There 
can be nothing in it which determines change, and jet noth- 
ing which prevents change. For if it contains something 
which imposes such necessities or restraints, this something 
must be a cause higher than the First Cause, which is ab- 
surd. Thus, the First Cause must be in every sense perfect, 
complete, total, including within itself all power, and trans- 
cending all law." We cannot criticize this better, and mark 
how curiously truth and error are mixed in it, than by so 
parodying it that only truth shall be stated. The First 
Cause possesses within himself all possible relations as be- 
longing to his necessary ideals. Hence, change, in the exact 
sense of that term, is impossible to him, for there is nothing 
for him to change to. This is not invalidated by his passing 
from inaction to action ; for creation involves no change in 
God's nature or attributes, and so no real or essential change, 
which is here meant. But he is the permanent, through 
whom all changes become. He is not, then, a simple unit, 
but is an organized Being, who is ground for, and compre- 
hends in a unity, all possible laws, forms, and relations, as 
necessary elements of his necessary existence, — as endow- 
ments which necessarily belong to him, and are conditional 
of his pure independence. Hence, these restraints are not 
"imposed" upon him, except as his existence is imposed 
9 



130 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

upon him. They belong to, his Self, and are conditional of 
his being. So, then, instead of " transcending all law," he is 
the embodiment of all law ; and his perfection is, that pos- 
sessing this endowment, he accords his conduct thereto. A 
being who should " transcend all law " would have no reason 
why he should act, and no form how he should act, neither 
would he be an organism, but would be pure lawlessness or 
pure chaos. Pure chaos cannot organize order ; pure law- 
lessness cannot establish law ; and so could not be the First 
Cause. As Mr. Spencer truly says, " we have no alterna- 
tive but to regard this First Cause as Infinite and Absolute." 
And now having learned, by a true diagnosis of the men- 
tal activities, that the positions we have gained are fixed, 
final, irrevocable ; and further, that they are not the " results " 
of " reasonings," but that first there was a seeing, and then 
an analysis of what was seen, and that the seeing is true, 
though every other experience be false ; we know that our 
position is not " illusive," but that we stand on the rock ; and 
that what we have seen is no " symbolic conception of the 
illegitimate order," but is pure truth. 

For the further consideration of this subject, the reader is 
referred back to our remarks on that passage in Mr. Man- 
sel's work, which Mr. Spencer has quoted. 

A few remarks upon his summing up, p. 43 et seq., will 
complete the review of this chapter. " Passing over the 
consideration of credibility, and confining ourselves to that 
of" consistency, we would find in any rigorous analysis, that 
Atheism and Pantheism are self-contradictory ; but we have 
found that Theism, " when rigorously analyzed," presents an 
absolutely consistent system, in which all the difficulties of 
the Understanding are explained to the person by the Reason, 
and is entirely thinkable. Such a system, based upon the 
necessary convictions of man, and justly commanding that 
these shall be the fixed standard, in accordance with which 
all doubts and queries shall be dissolved and decided, gives 
a rational satisfaction to man, and discloses to him his eternal 
Rest. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 131 

In proceeding to his final fact, which he derives as the 
permanent in all religions, Mr. Spencer overlooks another 
equally permanent, equally common, and incomparably more 
important fact, viz : that Fetishism, Polytheism, Pantheism, 
and Monotheism, — all religions alike assert that a god cre- 
ated the Universe. In other words, the great common ele- 
ment, in all the popular modes of accounting for the vast 
system of things in which we live is, that it is the product of 
an agency external to itself and that the external agency is 
personal Take the case of the rude aboriginal, who "as- 
sumes a separate personality behind every phenomenon." 
He does not attempt to account for all objects. His mind is 
too infantile, and he is too degraded to suspect that those 
material objects which appear permanent need to be accounted 
for. It is only the changes which seem to him to need a 
reason. Behind each change he imagines a sort of personal 
power, superior to it and man, which produces it, and this 
satisfies him. He inquires no further ; yet he looks in the 
same direction as the Monotheist. In this crude form of 
belief, which is named Fetishism, we see that essential idea 
which can be readily traced through all forms of religion, 
that some personal being, external, and superior to the things 
that be, produced them. Nor is Atheism a proper exception 
to this law. For Atheism is not a religion, but the denial of 
all religion. It is not a doctrine of God, but is a denial that 
there is any God ; and what is most in point, it never was a 
popular belief, but is only a philosophical Sahara over which 
a few caravans of speculative doubters and negatists wander. 
Neither can Hindu pantheism be quoted against the position 
taken : for Brahm is not the Universe ; neither are Brah- 
ma, Vishnu, and Siva. Brahm does not lose his individuality 
because the Universe is evolved from him. Now he is 
thought of as one, and the Universe as another, although the 
Universe is thought to be a part of his essence, and hereafter 
to be reabsorbed by him. Now, this part of his essence 
which was produced through Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, is 



132 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

individualized ; and so is one, while he is another. Thus, 
here also, the idea of a proper external agency is preserved. 
The facts, then, are decisively in favor of the proposition 
above laid down. " Our investigation " discloses " a funda- 
mental verity in each religion." And the facts and the 
verity find no consistent ground except in a pure Theism, 
and there they do find perfect consistency and harmony. 

It is required, finally, in closing the discussion of this 
chapter, to account for the fact that, upon a single idea so 
many theories of God have fastened themselves ; or better, 
perhaps, that a single idea has developed itself in so many 
forms. This cannot better be done than in the language of 
that metaphysician, not second to Plato, the apostle Paul. 
In his Epistle to the Romans, beginning at the 1 9th verse 
of the 1st chapter, he says : " Because that which may be 
known of God is manifest to them ; for God hath shewed it 
unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation 
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things 
which are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so 
that they are without excuse. Because that, when they 
knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were 
thankful ; but became vain in their imaginations, and their 
foolish heart was darkened : professing themselves to be wise 
they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible 
God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to 
birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." This 
passage, which w r ould be worthy the admiring study of ages, 
did it possess no claim to be the teaching of that Being whom 
Mr. Spencer asserts it is impossible for us to know, gives us 
in a popular form the truth. Man, having organic in his 
mind the idea of God, and having in the Universe an ample 
manifestation to the Sense, of the eternal power and God- 
head of the Creator of that Universe, corresponding to that 
idea, perverted the manifestation to the Sense, and degraded 
the idea in the Reason, to the service of base passion. By 
this degradation and perversion the organic idea became so 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 133 

bedizened with the finery of fancy formed in the Under- 
standing, under the direction of the animal nature, as to be 
lost to the popular mind, — the trappings only being seen. 
When once the truth was thus lost sight of, and w r ith it all 
that restraint which a knowledge of the true God would im- 
pose, men became vain in their imaginations ; their fancy 
ran riot in all directions. Cutting loose from all law, they 
plunged into every excess which could be invented ; and out 
of such a stimulated and teeming brain all manner of vaga- 
ries were devised. This was the first stage ; and of it we 
find some historic hints in the biblical account of the times, 
during and previous to the life of Abraham. Where secular 
history begins the human race had passed into the second 
stage. Crystallization had begun. Students were commen- 
cing the search for truth. Religion was taking upon itself 
more distinct forms. The organic idea, which could not 
be wholly obliterated, formed itself distinctly in the con- 
sciousness of some gifted individuals, and philosophy began. 
Philosophy in its purest form, as taught by Socrates and 
Plato, presented again the lost idea of pure Theism. But 
the spirituality which enabled them to see the truth, lifted 
them so far above the common people, that they could affect 
only a few. And what was most disheartening, that same 
degradation which originally lost to man the truth, now pre- 
vented him from receiving it. Thus it was that by a bind- 
ing of the Reason to the wheels of Passion, and discursing 
through the world with the Understanding at the beck of 
the Sense, the many forms of religion became. 



"ULTIMATE SCIENTIFIC IDEAS." 

On a former page we have already attempted a positive 
answer to the question, " What are Space and Time," with 
which Mr. Spencer opens this chapter. It was there found 



134 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

that, in general terms, they are a 'priori conditions of created 
being ; and, moreover, that they possess characteristics suit- 
able to what they condition, just as the a priori conditions of 
the spiritual person possess characteristics suitable to what 
they condition. It was further found that this general law is, 
from the necessity of the case, realized both within the mind 
and without it ; that it is, must be, the form of thought for 
the perceiving subject, corresponding to the condition of ex- 
istence for the perceived object. It also appeared that the 
Universe as object, and the Sense and Understanding as 
faculties in the subject, thus corresponded ; and further, that 
these faculties could never transcend and comprehend Space 
and Time, because these were the very conditions of their 
being ; moreover, that by them all spaces and times must be 
considered with reference to the Universe, and apart from it 
could not be examined by them at all. Yet it was further 
found that the Universe might in the presence of the Reason 
be abstracted ; and that, then, pure Space and Time still 
remained as pure a priori conditions, the one as room, the 
other as opportunity, for the coming of created being. Space 
and Time being such conditions, and nothing more, are entities 
only in the same sense that the multiplication table and the 
moral law are entities. They are conditions suited to what 
they condition. In the light of this result let us examine 
Mr. Spencer's teachings respecting them. 

Strictly speaking, Space and Time do not " exist." If they 
exist (ex sto), they must stand out somewhere and when. 
This of course involves the being of a where and a when in 
which they can stand out ; and that where and when must 
needs be accounted for, and so on ad infinitum. Again, Mr. 
Spencer would seem to speak, in his usual style, as if they, 
in existing " objectively," had a formal objective existence. 
Yet this, in the very statement of it, appears absurd. The 
mind apprehends many objects, which do not " exist." They 
only are. Thus, as has just been said, Space and Time, as 
conditions of created being, are. They are entities but not 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 135 

existences. They are a 'priori entities, and so are neces- 
sarily. By this they stand in the same category with all 
pure laws, all first principles. 

" Moreover, to deny that Space and Time are things, and 
so by implication to call them nothings, involves the absurdity 
that there are two kinds of nothings." This sentence " in- 
volves the absurdity " of assuming that " nothing " is an entity. 
If I say that Space is nothing, I say that it presents no con- 
tent for a concept, and cannot, because there is no content 
to be presented. It is then blank. Just so of Time. As 
nothings they are, then, both equally blank, and destitute of 
meaning. Now if Mr. Spencer wishes to hold that nothing 
represented by one word, differs from nothing represented by 
another, we would not lay a straw in his way, but yet would 
be much surprised if he led a large company. 

Again, having decided that they are neither " nonentities 
nor the attributes of entities, we have no choice but to con- 
sider them as entities." But he then goes on to speak of 
them as " things," evidently using the word in the same sense 
as if applying it to a material object, as an apple or stone ; 
thereby implying that entity and thing in that sense are 
synonymous terms. Upon this leap in the dark, this blunder 
in the use of language, he proceeds to build up a mountain of 
difficulties. But once take away this foundation, once cease 
attempting " to represent them in thought as things," and 
his difficulties vanish. Space is a condition. Perhaps re- 
ceptivity, indivisibility, and illimitability are attributes. If 
so, it has attributes, for these certainly belong to it. But 
whether these shall be called attributes or not, it is certain 
that Space is, is a pure condition, is thus a positive object to 
the Reason, is qualified by the characteristics named above ; 
and all this without any contradiction or other insuperable 
difficulty arising thereby. On the ground now established, 
we learn that extension and Space are not " convertible 
terms." Extension is an attribute of matter. Space is a con- 
dition of phenomena. It is only all physical " entities which 



136 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

we actually know as such" that "are limited." From our 
standpoint, that Space is no thing, such remarks as " We 
find ourselves totally unable to form any mental image of 
unbounded Space," appear painfully absurd. " We find our- 
selves" just as " totally unable to form any mental image of 
unbounded " love. Such phrases as " mental image " have 
no relevancy to either Space or Time. In criticizing Kant's 
doctrine, which we have found true as far as it goes, Mr. 
Spencer evinces a surprising lack of knowledge of the facts 
in question. " In the first place," he says, " to assert that 
Space and Time, as we are conscious of them, are subjective 
conditions, is by implication to assert that they are not ob- 
jective realities." But the conclusion does not follow. If 
the reader will take the trouble to construct the syllogism on 
which this is based, he will at once perceive the absurdity of 
the logic. It may be said in general that all conditions of a 
thinking being are both subjective and objective : they are 
conditions of his being — subjective ; and they are objects 
of his examination and cognizance — objective. Is not the 
multiplication table an objective reality, i. e., would it not 
remain if he be destroyed ? And yet is it not also a sub- 
jective law ; and so was it not originally discovered by in- 
trospection and reflection ? Again he says, " for that con- 
sciousness of Space and Time which we cannot rid ourselves 
of, is the consciousness of them as existing objectively." Now 
the fact is, that primarily we do not have any consciousness 
of Space and Time. Consciousness has to do with phenomena. 
When examining the material Universe, the objects, and the 
objects as at a distance from each other and as during, are 
what we are conscious of. For instance, I view the planets 
Jupiter and Saturn. They appear as objects in my conscious- 
ness. There is a distance between them ; but this distance 
is not, except as they are. If they are not, the word distance 
has no meaning with reference to them. Take them away, 
and I have no consciousness of distance as remaining. These 
planets continue in existence. They endure. This endurance 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 137 

we call time, but if they should cease, one could not think of 
endurance in connection with them as remaining. Here we 
most freely and willingly agree with Mr. Spencer that " the 
question is, What does consciousness directly testify ? " but 
he will find that consciousness on this side the water testifies 
very differently from his consciousness : as for instance in the 
two articles in the " North American Review," heretofore 
alluded to. Here, " the direct testimony of consciousness is," 
that spaces and times within the Universe are without the 
mind ; that Space and Time, as a priori conditions for the 
possibility of formal object and during event, are also without 
the mind; but the "testimony" is none the less clear and 
"direct" that Space and Time are laws of thought in the 
mind corresponding to the actualities without the mind. And 
the question may be asked, it is believed with great force, 
If this last were not so, how could the mind take any cog- 
nizance of the actuality ? Again, most truly, Space and Time 
" cannot be conceived to become non-existent even were the 
mind to become non-existent." Much more strongly than 
this should the truth be uttered. They could not become 
non-existent if the Universe with every sentient being, yea, 
even — to make an impossible supposition — if the Deity 
himself, should cease to be. In this they differ no whit from 
the laws of Mathematics, of Logic, and of Morals. These 
too would remain as well. Thus is again enforced the truth, 
which has been stated heretofore, that Space and Time, as 
a priori conditions of the Universe, stand in precisely the 
same relation to material object and during event that the 
multiplication table does to intellect, or the moral law to a 
spiritual person. It will now be doubtless plain that Mr. 
Spencer's remarks sprang directly from the lower faculties. 
The Sense in its very organization possesses Space and Time 
as void forms into which objects may come. So also the 
Understanding possesses the notional as connecting into a 
totality. These faculties cannot be in a living man with- 
out acting. Activity is their law. Hence images are ever 



138 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

arising and must arise in the Sense, and be connected in the 
Understanding, and all this in the forms and conditions of 
Space and Time. He who thinks continually in these con- 
ditions will always imagine that Space and Time are only 
without him — because he will be thinking only in the iron 
prison-house of the imagining faculty — and so cannot tran- 
scend the conditions it imposes. Now how shall one see these 
conditions? They do "exist objectively" ; or, to phrase it 
better, they have a true being independent of our minds. In 
this sense, as we have seen, every a priori condition must be 
objective to the mind. What is objective to the Sense is not 
Space but a space, i. e. a part of Space limited by matter ; 
and, after all, it is the boundaries which are the true object 
rather than the space, which cannot be " conceived " of if 
the boundaries be removed. Without further argument, is it 
not evident that there Space, like all other a priori conditions, 
is object only to the Reason, and that as a condition of 
material existence ? 

At the bottom of page 49 we have another of Mr. Spen- 
cer's psychological errors : — " For if Space and Time are 
forms of thought, they can never be thought of; since it is 
impossible for anything to be at once the form of thought 
and the matter of thought." Although this topic has been 
amply discussed elsewhere, it may not be uninstructive to 
recur to it again. Exactly the opposite of Mr. Spencer's 
remark is the truth. The question at issue here is one of 
those profound and subtile ones which cannot be approached 
by argument, but can be decided only by a seeing. It is a 
psychological question pertaining to the profoundest depths 
of our being. If one says, " I see the forms of thought," and 
another, " I cannot see them," neither impeaches the other. 
All that is left is to stimulate the dull faculty of the one 
until he can see. The following reflections may help us 
to see. Mr. Spencer's remark implies that we have no 
higher faculty than the Sense and the Understanding. It 
implies, also, that we can never have any self-knowledge, in 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 139 

the fundamental signification of that phrase. We can ob- 
serve the conduct of the mind, and study and classify the 
results ; but the laws, the constitution of the activity itself 
must forever remain closed to us. As was said, when speak- 
ing of this subject under a different phase, the eye cannot 
see and study itself. It is a mechanical organism, capable 
only of reaction as acted upon, capable only of seeing results, 
but never able to penetrate to the hidden springs which un- 
derlie the event. Just so is it with the Sense and Under- 
standing. They are mere mechanical faculties capable of 
acting as they are acted upon, but never able to go behind 
the appearance to its final source. On such a hypothesis as 
this all science is impossible, but most of all a science of the 
human mind. If man is enclosed by such walls, no knowl- 
edge of his central self can be gained. He may know what 
he does ; but what he is, is as inscrutable to him as what 
God is. As such a being, he is only a higher order of 
brute. He has some dim perceptions, some vague feelings, 
but he has no knowledge ; he is sure of nothing. He can 
reach no ground which is ultimate, no Bock which he knows 
is immutable. Is man such a being? The longings and 
aspirations of the ages roll back an unceasing No ! He is 
capable of placing himself before himself, of analyzing that 
self to the very groundwork of his being. All the laws of 
his constitution, all the forms of his activity, he can clearly 
and amply place before himself and know them. And how 
is this ? It is because God has endowed him with an Eye 
like unto His own, which enables man to be self-compre- 
hending, as He is self-comprehending, — the Reason, with 
which man may read himself as a child reads a book ; that 
man can make "the form of thought the matter of thought." 
True, the Understanding is shut out from any consideration 
of the forms of thought ; but man is not simply or mainly 
an Understanding. He is, in his highest being, a spiritual 
person, whom God has endowed with the faculty of Vision ; 
and the great organic evil, which the fall wrought into the 



140 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

world, was this very denial of the spiritual light, and this 
crowding down and out of sight, of the spiritual person be- 
neath the animal nature, this denial of the essential faculties 
of such person, and this elevation of the lower faculties of 
the animal nature, the Sense and Understanding, into the 
highest place, which is involved in all such teachings as we 
are criticizing. 

Mr. Spencer's remarks upon " Matter " are no nearer the 
truth. In almost his first sentence there is a grievous logical 
faux pas. He says : " Matter is either infinitely divisible 
or it is not ; no third possibility can be named." Yet we 
will name one, as follows : The divisibility of matter has no 
relation to infinity. And this third supposition happens to 
be the truth. But it will be said that the question should be 
stated thus : Either there is a limit to the divisibility of mat- 
ter, or there is no limit. This statement is exhaustive, be- 
cause limitation belongs to matter. Of these alternatives 
there can be no hesitation which one to choose. There is a 
limit to the divisibility of matter. This answer cannot be 
given by the physical sense ; for no one questions but what 
it is incapable of finding a limit. The mental sense could 
not give it, because it is a question of actual substance and 
not of ideal forms. The Keason gives the answer. Matter 
is limited at both extremes. Its amount is definite, as are its 
final elements. These " ultimate parts " have " an under and 
an upper surface, a right and a left side." When, then, one 
of these parts shall be broken, what results ? Not pieces, as 
the materialist, thinking only in the Sense, would have us 
believe. When a final "part" shall be broken, there will 
remain no matter, — to the sense nothing. To it, the result 
would be annihilation. But the Reason declares that there 
would be left God's power in its simplicity, — that final Unit 
out of which all diversity becomes. 

The subsequent difficulties raised respecting the solidity 
of Matter may be explained thus. And for convenience, 
sake we will limit the term Matter to such substances as are 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 141 

object to the physical sense, like granite, while Force shall 
be used to comprise those finer substances, like the Ether, 
which are impalpable to the physical sense. Matter is com- 
posed of very minute ultimate particles which do not touch, 
but which are held together by Force. The space between 
the atoms, which would otherwise be in vacuo, is full of 
Force. We might be more exhaustive in our analysis, and 
say — which would be true — that a space-filling force com- 
poses the Universe ; and that Matter is only Force in one 
of its modifications. But without this the other statement is 
sufficient. When, then, a portion of matter is compressed, 
the force which holds the ultimate particles in their places is 
overcome by an external force, and these particles are brought 
nearer together. Now, how is it with the moving body and 
the collision ? Bisect a line, and see the truth. 

C 

A B 

1 

A body with a mass of 4 is moving with a velocity of 4 along 
the line from A to B. At C it meets another body with a 
mass of 4 at rest. From thence the two move on towards B 
with a velocity of 2. What has happened? In the body 
there was a certain amount of force, which set it in motion 
and kept it in motion. And just here let us make a point. 
No force is ever lost or destroyed. It is only transferred. 
When a bullet is fired from a gun, it possesses at one point a 
maximum of force. From that point this force is steadily 
transferred to the air and other substances, until all that it 
received from the powder is spent. But at any one point in 
its flight, the sum of the force which has been transferred 
since the maximum, and of the force yet to be transferred, 
will always equal the maximum. Now, how is it respecting 
the question raised by Mr. Spencer ? The instant of contact 
is a point in time, not a period, and the transfer of force is 
instantaneous. C, then, is a point, not a period, and the 
velocity on the one side is 4 and the other side 2, while the 



142 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

momentum or force is exactly equal throughout the line. If 
it is said that this proves that a body can pass from one 
velocity to another without passing through the intermediate 
velocities, we cannot help it. The above are the facts, and 
they give the truth. The following sentence of Mr. Spen- 
cer is, at least, careless. " For when, of two such units, 
one moving at velocity 4 strikes another at rest, the striking 
unit must have its velocity 4 instantaneously reduced to ve- 
locity 2 ; must pass from velocity 4 to velocity 2 without any 
lapse of time, and without passing through intermediate ve- 
locities ; must be moving with velocities 4 and 2 at the same 
instant, which is impossible." If there is any sense in the 
remark, " instantaneously " must mean a point of time with- 
out period. For, if any period is allowed, the sentence has 
no meaning, since during that period " the striking unit " 
passes through all " intermediate velocities." But if by in- 
stantaneously he means without period, then the last clause 
of the sentence is illogical, since instant there evidently 
means a period. For if it means point, then it contradicts 
the first clause. There, it is asserted that 4 was "reduced" 
to 2, i. e. that at one point the velocity was 4, and at the 
next point it was 2, and that there was no time between. If 
4 was instantaneously reduced to 2, then the velocity 2 was 
next after the velocity 4, and not coeval with it. Thus it 
appears that these two clauses which were meant to be sy- 
nonymous are contradictory. 

Bearing in mind what we have heretofore learned respect- 
ing atoms, we shall not be troubled by the objections to the 
Newtonian theory which follow. In reply to the question, 
" What is the constitution of these units ? " the answer, " We 
have no alternative but to regard each of them as a small 
piece of matter," would be true if the Sense was the only 
faculty which could examine them. But even upon this 
theory Mr. Spencer's remarks " respecting the parts of which 
each atom consists," are entirely out of place ; for the hy- 
pothesis that it is an ultimate atom excludes the supposition 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 143 

of " parts," since that phrase has no meaning except it refers 
to a final, indivisible, material unit. All that the Sense 
could say, would be, " What this atom is I know not, but 
that it is, and is not divisible, I belie ve." But when we see 
by the Reason that the ultimate atom, when dissolved, be- 
comes God's power, all difficulty in the question vanishes. 
Having thus answered the above objections, it is unnecessary 
to notice the similar ones raised against Boscovich's theory, 
which is a modification of that of Newton. 

Mr. Spencer next examines certain phenomena of motion. 
The fact that he seeks for absolute motion by the physical 
sense, a faculty which was only given us to perceive relative 
— phenomenal — motion, and is, in its kind, incapable of find- 
ing the absolute motion, (for if it should see it, it could not 
know it,) is sufficient to condemn all that he has said on this 
subject. For the presentations which he has made of the 
phenomena given us by the Sense does not exhaust the sub- 
ject. The perplexities therein developed are all resolvable, 
as will appear further on. The phenomena adduced on page 
55 are, then, merely appearances in the physical sense ; and 
the motion is merely relative. In the first instance, the cap- 
tain walks East with reference to the ship and globe. In the 
second, he walks East with reference to the ship ; the ship 
sails West with reference to the globe ; while the resultant 
motion is, that he is stationary with reference to this larger 
object. What, then, can the Sense give us ? Only result- 
ant motion, at the most. So we see that "our ideas of 
Motion " are not u illusive," but deficient The motion is 
just what it appears, measured from a given object. It is 
relative, and this is all the Sense can give. Our author ac- 
knowledges that " we tacitly assume that there are real 
motions " ; that " we take for granted that there are fixed 
points in space, with respect to which all motions are abso- 
lute ; and we find it impossible to rid ourselves of this idea." 
A question instantly arises, and it seems to be one which he 
is bound to entertain, viz : How comes this idea to be ? We 



144 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

press this question upon Mr. Spencer, being persuaded that 
he will find it much more perplexing than those he has en- 
tertained. Undoubtedly, " absolute motion cannot even be 
imagined." No motion can be imagined, though the moving 
body may be. But by no means does it follow, " much less 
known." This involves that the knowing faculty is inferior 
to, and more circumscribed than, the imagining faculty, when 
the very opposite is the fact. Neither does it follow from 
what is said in the paragraph beginning with, " For motion 
is change of place," that " while we are obliged to think that 
there is absolute motion, we find absolute motion incompre- 
hensible." The Universe is limited and bounded, and is a 
sphere. We may assume that the centre of the sphere is at 
rest. Instantly absolute motion becomes comprehensible, for 
it is motion measured from that point. Surely there can be 
no harm in the supposition. The Reason shows us that the 
supposition is the truth ; and that that centre is the throne 
of the eternal God. In this view not only is motion, apart 
from the " limitations of space," totally unthinkable, but it is 
absolutely impossible. Motion cannot be, except as a formal 
body is. Hence, to speak of motion in u unlimited space " is 
simply absurd. Formal object cannot be, except as thereby a 
limit is established in Space. Hence it is evident that " ab- 
solute motion " is not motion with reference to " unlimited 
Space," which would be the same as motion without a mov- 
ing; but is motion with reference to that point fixed in 
Space, around which all things revolve, but which is itself at 
perfect rest. 

" Another insuperable difficulty presents itself, when we 
contemplate the transfer of Motion." Motion is simply the 
moving of a body, and cannot be transferred. The force 
which causes the motion is what is transferred. All that can 
be said of motion is, that it is, that it increases, that it di- 
minishes, that it ceases. If the moving body impinges upon 
another moving body, and causes it to move, it is not motion 
that is transferred, but the force which causes the motion. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 145 

The motion in the impinging body is diminished, and a new- 
motion is begun in the body which was at rest. Again it 
is asked : " In what respect does a body after impact differ 
from itself before impact ? " And further on : " The motion 
you say has been communicated. But how ? What has been 
communicated? The striking body has not transferred a 
thing to the body struck ; and it is equally out of the question 
to say that it has transferred an attribute." Observe now 
that a somewhat is unquestionably communicated ; and the 
question is : — What is it ? Query. Does Mr. Spencer mean 
to comprehend the Universe in " thing " and " attribute " ? 
He would seem to. If he does, he gives a decision by asser- 
tion without explanation or proof, which involves the very 
question at issue, which is, Is the somewhat transferred a 
" thing " or an " attribute " ; and a decision directly contrary 
to the acknowledgment that a somewhat has been com- 
municated ? On the above-named hypothesis his statement 
should be as follows : A somewhat has been communicated. 
" Thing " and " attribute" comprise all the Universe. Neither 
a thing, nor an attribute has been communicated, i. e. no 
somewhat has been communicated ; which contradicts the 
evidence and the acknowledgment. If on the other hand Mr. 
Spencer means that "thing" and "attribute" comprise only 
a part of the Universe, then the question is not fairly met. 
It may be more convenient for the moment to conclude the 
Universe in the two terms thing and attribute ; and then, as 
attribute is essential to the object it qualifies, and so cannot 
be communicated, it will follow that a thing has been com- 
municated. This thing we call force. It is not in hand now 
to inquire what force is. It is manifest to the Sense that the 
body is in a different state after impact, than it was before. 
Something has been put into the body, which, though not 
directly appreciable to the Sense, is indirectly appreciable by 
the results, and which is as real an addition as water is to a 
bowl, when poured in. Before the impact the body was 
destitute of that kind of force — motor force would be a con- 
10 



146 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

venient term — which tended to move it. After the impact 
a sufficiency of that force was present to produce the motion. 
It may be asked, where does this force go to when the motion 
diminishes till the body stops. It passes into the substances 
which cause the diminution until there is no surplus in the 
moving body, and at the point of equilibrium motion ceases. 
If it be now asked, where does this force ultimately go to, it 
is to be said that it comes from God, and goes to God, who 
is the Final. The Sense gives only subordinate answers, but 
the Reason leads us to the Supreme. 

If the view adopted be true, Mr. Spencer's halving and 
halving again " the rate of movement forever," is irrelevant. 
It is not a mental operation but an actual fact which is to be 
accounted for. Take a striking illustration. A ball lying on 
smooth ice is struck with a hockey. Away it goes skimming 
over the glassy surface with a steadily diminishing velocity 
till it ceases. It starts, it proceeds, it stops. These are 
the facts ; and the mental operation must accord with them. 
There is put into the ball, at the instant of contact, a certain 
amount of motor force. From that instant onward, that force 
flows out of the ball into the resisting substances by which 
it is surrounded, until none is left. And it is just as pertinent 
to ask how all the water can flow out of a pail, as how all the 
motor force can flow out of a moving substance. "The 
smallest movement is separated " by no more of " an impas- 
sable gap from no movement," than it is from a larger move- 
ment above it. That which will account for a movement four 
becoming two, will account for a movement two becoming 
zero. The " puzzle," then, may be explained thus. Time is 
the procession of events. Let it be represented by a line. 
Take a point in that line, which will then mark its division 
but represent no period. On one side of that point is rest ; 
on the other motion. That point is the point of contact, and 
occupies no period. At this point the motion is maximum. 
The force instantly begins to flow off, and continues in a 
steady stream until none is left, and the body is again at rest. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 147 

Here, also, we take a point. This is the point of zero. It 
again divides the line. Before the bisection is motion ; after 
the bisection is rest. All this cannot be perceived by the 
Sense, nor conceived. by the Understanding. It is seen by 
the Reason. Now observe the actual phenomenon. The 
ball starts, proceeds, stops. From maximum to zero there is 
a steady diminution, or nearly enough so for the experiment ; 
at least the diminution can be averaged for the illustration. 
Then comparing motion with time, the same difficulty falls 
upon the one as the other. If the motion is halved, the time 
must be ; and so, " mentally," it is impossible to imagine how 
a moment of time can pass. To the halving faculty — the 
Sense — this is true, and so we are compelled to correct our 
course of procedure. This it is. The Sense and Under- 
standing being impotent to discover an absolute unit of any 
kind, the Sense assumes for itself what meets all practical 
wants — a standard unit, by which it measures parts in Space 
and Time. So motion must be measured by some assumed 
standard; and as, like time, — duration, — it can be repre- 
sented by a line, let them have a common standard. Sup- 
pose, then, that the ball's flight occupies ten minutes of time. 
The line from m to z will be divided into ten exactly equal 
spaces ; and it will be no more difficult to account for the 
flow of force from 10 to 9, than from 1 to 0. Also let it be 
observed that the force, like time, is a unit, which the Sense, 
for its convenience, divides into parts ; but that neither those 
parts, nor any parts, have any real existence. As Time is 
an indivisible whole, measured off for convenience, so any 
given force is such a whole, and is so measured off. All this 
appearing and measuring are phenomenal in the Sense. It 
is the Reason which sees that they can be only phenomenal, 
and that behind the appearance is pure Spirit — God, who 
is primarily out of all relation. 

On page 58, near the close of his illustration of the <jhair, 
Mr. Spencer says : " It suffices to remark that since the force 
as known to us is an affection of consciousness, we cannot 



148 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

conceive the force as existing in the chair under the same 
form without endowing the chair with consciousness." This 
very strange assertion can only be true, provided a major 
premiss, No force can be conceived to exist without in- 
volving an affection of consciousness in the object in which 
it apparently inheres, is true. Such a premiss seems worse 
than absurd ; it seems silly. We cannot learn that force 
exists, without our consciousness is affected thereby ; but this 
is a very different thing from our being unable to conceive 
of a force as existing, without there is a consciousness in the 
object through which it appears. If Mr. Spencer had said 
that no force can be, without being exerted, and no force 
can be exerted, without an affection of the consciousness of 
the exertor, he would have uttered the truth. We would 
then have the following result. Primarily all force is exerted 
by the Deity ; and he is conscious thereof. He draws the 
chair down just as really as though the hand were visible. 
Secondarily spiritual persons are endowed by their Creator 
with the ability to exert his force for their uses, and so I lift 
the chair. The great error, which appears on every page of 
Mr. Spencer's book and invalidates all his conclusions, shows 
itself fully here. He presents images from the Sense, and 
then tries to satisfy the Reason — the faculty which calls for 
an absolute account — by the analyses of that Sense. His 
attempt to " halve the rate," his remark that " the smallest 
movement is separated by an impassable gap from no move- 
ment," and many such, are only pertinent to the Sense, can 
never be explained by the Sense, and are found by the 
Reason to need, and be capable of, no such kind of ex- 
planation as the Sense attempts ; but that the phenomena 
are appearances in wholes, whose partitions cannot be abso- 
lute, and that these wholes are accounted for by the being 
of an absolute and infinite Person — God, who is utterly 
impalpable to the Sense, and can be known only by the 
Reason. 

The improper use of the Sense mentioned above, is, if pos- 



. KNOW THE TRUTH. 149 

sible, more emphatically exemplified in the remarks upon 
" the connection between Force and Matter." " Our ultimate 
test of Matter is the ability to resist." This is true to the 
Sense, but no farther. " Resist " what ? Other matter, of 
course. Thus is the sensuousness made manifest. In the 
Sense, then, we have a material object. But Force is not 
object to the Sense directly, but only indirectly by its effects 
through Matter. The Sense, in its percept, deems the force 
other than the matter. Hence it is really no more difficult 
for the Sense to answer the question, How could the Sun 
send a force through 95,000,000 of miles of void to the Earth 
and hold it, than through solid rock that distance ? All that 
the Sense can do is to present the phenomena. It is utterly 
impotent to account for the least of them. 

In the following passage, on page 61, Mr. Spencer seems 
to have been unaccountably led astray. He says : "Let the 
atoms be twice as far apart, and their attractions and repul- 
sions will both be reduced to one fourth of their present 
amounts. Let them be brought within half the distance, and 
their attractions and repulsions will both be quadrupled. 
Whence it follows that this matter will as readily as not 
assume any other density ; and can offer no resistance to any 
external agents." Now if this be true, there can be no u ex- 
ternal agents " to which to offer any u resistance." It is 
simply to assert that all force neutralizes itself; and that 
matter is impossible. But the conclusion does not u follow." 
It is evidently based on the supposition that the " attractions 
and repulsions " are contra-acting forces which exactly balance 
each other, and so the molecules are held in their position by 
no force. Instead of this, they are co-acting forces, which 
are wholly expended in holding the molecules in their places. 
The repulsions, then, are expended in resisting pressure from 
without which seeks to crowd the particles in upon them- 
selves and thus disturb their equilibrium ; while the attrac- 
tions are expended in holding the particles down to their 
natural distance from each other when any disturbing force 



150 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 



attempts to separate them. Hence, referring to the two 
cases mentioned, in the first instance the power of resistance 
is reduced to one fourth, and this corresponds with the fact ; 
and in the second instance the power of resistance is increased 
fourfold, and this corresponds with the fact. 

We thus arrive at the end of Mr. Spencer's remarks con- 
cerning the material Universe and of our strictures thereon. 
Perhaps the reader's mind cannot better be satisfied as to the 
validity of these strictures than by presenting an outline of 
the system furnished by the Reason, and upon which they are 
based. 

The Reason gives, by a direct and immediate intuition, 
and as a necessary a priori idea, God. This is a spontaneous^ 
synthetical act, precisely the same in kind with that which 
gives a simple a priori principle, as idea. In it the Reason 
intuits, not a single principle seen to be necessary simply, but 
the fact that all possible principles must be combined in a 
perfectly harmonious unity, in a single Being, who thereby 
possesses all possible endowments; and so is utterly inde- 
pendent, and is seen to be the absolute and infinite Person, 
the perfect Spirit. This act is no conclusion of the One from 
the many in a synthetical judgment, but is entirely different. 
It is the necessary seeing of the many in the One ; and so is 
not a judgment but an intuition, not a guess but a certainty. 
God, then, is known, when known at all, not " by plurality, 
difference, and relation," but by an immediate insight into his 
unity, and so is directly known as he is. And the whole 
Universe is, that creatures might be, to whom this revelation 
was possible. Among the other necessary endowments which 
this intuition reveals, is that of immanent power commensurate 
with his dignity, and adequate to realize in actual creatures 
the necessary a priori ideas, which he also possesses as en- 
dowments. Power is, then, a simple idea, incapable of 
analysis ; and which cannot therefore be defined, except by 
synonymous terms ; and to which President Hopkins's remark 
upon moral obligation is equally pertinent; viz: "that we 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 151 

can only state the occasion on which it arises." From these 
data the a priori idea of the Universe may be developed as 
follows : — 

God, the absolute and infinite Person, possesses, as inherent 
endowment forever immanent in himself, Universal Genius ; 
which is at once capacity and faculty, in which he sees, and 
by which he sees, all possible ideas, and these in all possible 
combinations or ideals. Thus has he all possible knowledge. 
From the various ideal systems which thus are, he, having 
perfect wisdom, and according his choice to the behest of his 
own worth, selects that one which is thus seen to be best ; 
and thereby determines the forms and laws under which the 
Universe shall become. He also possesses, as inherent en- 
dowment, all power ; i. e. the ability to realize every one of 
his ideals ; but not the ability to violate the natural laws of 
his being, as to make two and two five. The ideal system 
is only ideal : the power is simply pow 7 er ; and so long as 
the two remain isolated, no-thing will be. Therefore, in 
order to the realization of his ideal, it must be combined with 
the pow 7 er ; t. e., the power must be organized according to 
the ideal. How, then, can the power, having been sent forth 
from God, be organized ? Thus. If the power goes forth in 
its simplicity, it will be expended uselessly, because there is 
no substance upon which it may be exercised. It follows, 
then, that, if exercised at all, it must be exercised upon itself. 
When, therefore, God would create the Universe, he sent 
forth two " pencils," or columns of power, of equal and suffi- 
cient volume, which, acting upon each other from opposite 
directions, just held each other in balance, and thus force was. 
These two " pencils," thus balancing each other, would result 
in a sphere of " space-filling force." The point of contact 
would determine the first place in Space, and the first point 
in Time ; from which, if attainable, an absolute measure of 
each could be made. All w T e have now attained is the single 
duality " space-filling force," which is wholly homogeneous, 
is of sufficient volume to constitute the Universe, and yet by 



152 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

no means is the Universe. There is only Chaos, " without 
form and void, and darkness " is " upon the face of the deep." 
Now must " the Spirit of God move upon the face of the 
waters " ; then through vast and to us immeasurable periods 
of time, through cycle and epicycle, the work of organization 
will go on. Ever moving under forms laid down in the 
a priori ideal, God's power turns upon itself, as out of the 
crush of elemental chaos the Universe is being evolved. 
During this process, whatever of the force is to act under the 
law of heat in the a priori ideal, assumes that form and the 
heat force becomes ; whatever is to act under the law of 
magnetism, assumes that form, and magnetic force becomes ; 
so of light, and the various forms of matter. At length, in 
the revolution of the cycles, the Universe attains that degree 
of preparation which fits it for living things to be, and the 
life force is organized ; and by degrees all its various forms 
are brought forth. After another vast period that point is 
reached when an animal may be organized, which shall be 
the dwelling-place for a time of a being whose life is utterly 
different in kind from any animal life, and man appears. 
Now in all these vast processes, be it observed that God is , 
personally present, that the first energy was his, and that 
every subsequent energizing act is his special and per- 
sonal act. He organized the duality, force. He then or- 
ganized this force into heat-force, light-force, magnetic-force, 
matter-force, life-force, and soul-force. And so it is that his 
personal supervision and energy is actually present in every 
atom of the Universe. When we turn from this process of 
thought to the sensible facts, and speak of granite, sandstone, 
schist, clay, herbage, animals, yes, of the thousand kinds of 
substance which appear to the eye, it is to be remembered 
that all these are but forms to the Sense of that " reason- 
conception," force, — that primal duality, which power acting 
upon itself becomes. Now as the machine can never carve 
any other image than those for which it is specially con- 
structed, and must work just as it is made to work, so the 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 153 

Sense, which is purely mechanical, can never do any other 
than the work for which it was made, can never transcend the 
laws of its organization. It can only give forms — results, 
but is impotent to go behind them. It can only say that 
things are, but never say what or why they are. 

Seen in the light of the theory which has thus been pre- 
sented, Mr. Spencer's difficulties vanish. Matter is force. 
Motion is matter affected by another form of force. The 
" puzzle " of motion and rest is only phenomenal to the Sense ; 
it is an appearance of force acting through another force. It 
may also be said that the Universe is solid force. There is 
no void in it. There is no nook, no crevice or cranny, that 
is not full of force. To seek, then, for some medium through 
which force may traverse vast distances, is the perfection of 
superfluity. From centre to circumference it is present, and 
controls all things, and is all things. So it is no more diffi- 
cult to see how force reaches forth and holds worlds in their 
place, than how it draws down the pebble which a boy has 
thrown into the air. It is no substance which must travel 
over the distance, it is rather an inflexible rod which swings 
the worlds round in their orbits. Whether, then, we look at 
calcined crags or lilies of the valley, whether astronomy, or 
geology, or chemistry be our study, the objects grouped under 
those sciences will be found to be equally the results of this 
one force, acting under different laws, and taking upon itself 
different forms, and becoming different objects. 

That faculty and that line of thought, which have given so 
readily the solution of the difficulties brought to view by Mr. 
Spencer's examination of the outer world, will afford us an 
easier solution, if possible, of the difficulties which he has 
raised respecting the inner world. That which is not of us, 
but is far from us, may perchance be imperfectly known ; but 
ourselves, what we are, and the laws of our being, may be 
certainly and accurately known. And this is the highest 
knowledge. It may be important, as an element of culture, 
that we become acquainted with many facts respecting the 



154 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

outer world. It cannot but be of the utmost importance, that 
we know ourselves ; for thus only can we fulfil the behest of 
that likeness to God, in which we were originally created. 
We seek for, we may obtain, we have obtained knowledge in 
the inner world, — a knowledge sure, steadfast, immutable. 

It seems to be more than a mere verbal criticism, rather a 
fundamental one, that it is not " our states of consciousness " 
w T hich " occur in succession " ; but that the modifications in 
our consciousness so occur. Consciousness is one, and retains 
that oneness throughout all modifications. These occur in 
the unity, as items of experience affect it. Is this series of 
modifications " of consciousness infinite or finite " ? To this 
question experience can give no answer. All experiments 
are irrelevant ; because these can only be after the faculty 
of consciousness is. They can go no further back than the 
forms of the activity. These they may find, but they cannot 
account for. A law lies on all those powers by which an 
experiment may be made, which forever estops them from 
attaining to the substance of the power which lies back of the 
form. The eye cannot examine itself. The Sense, as mental 
capacity for the reception of impressions, cannot analyze its 
constituents. The Understanding, as connective faculty con- 
cluding in judgments, is impotent to discover why it must 
judge one way and not another. It is only when we ascend 
to the Reason that we reach the region of true knowledge. 
Here, overlooking, analyzing all the conduct of the lower 
powers, and holding the self right in the full blaze of the Eye 
of self, Man attains a true and fundamental self-knowledge. 
From this Mount of Vision we know that infinity and finite- 
ness have no pertinence to modifications of consciousness, or 
in fact to any series. We attain to the further knowledge 
that this series is, must be, limited ; because the constituted 
beings, in whom it in each case inheres, are limited, and had 
a beginning. It matters not now to inquire how a self-con- 
scious person could be created. It is sufficient to know that 
one has been created. This fact involves the further fact 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 155 

that consciousness, as an actuality, began in the order of 
nature, after the being to whom it belongs as endowment, or, 
in other words, an organization must be, before the modifica- 
tions which inhere in that organization can become. The 
attainment of this as necessary law is far more satisfactory 
than any experience could be, were it possible ; for we can 
never know but that an experience may be modified ; but a 
law given in the intuition is immutable. The fact, ascertained 
many pages back, that the subject and the object are identical 
under the final examination of the Reason, enables us to 
attain the present end of the chain. The question is one of 
fact, and is purely psychological. It cannot be passed upon, 
or in any way interfered with, by logical processes. It is 
only by examination, by seeing, that the truth can be known. 
Faraday ridiculed as preposterous the pretension that a vessel 
propelled by steam could cross the ocean, and demonstrated, 
to his entire satisfaction, the impossibility of the event. Yet 
the Savannah crossed, and laughed at him. Just so here, all 
arguing is folly. The question is one of fact in experience. 
And upon it the soul gives undoubted answer, as we have 
stated. Nor is it so difficult, as some would have us believe, 
to see how this may be. Consciousness is an indivisible unity, 
and, as we have before seen, may best be defined as the light 
in which the person intuits his own acts and activities. This 
unity is abiding, and is ground for the modifications. It is, 
then, now, and the person now knows what the present 
modification is. The person does not need to look to memory 
and learn what the former modification was. It immediately 
knows what the modification is now. Thus a simple attain- 
ment of the psychological truth through a careful examination 
dispels as a morning mist the whole cloud of Mr. Spencer's 
difficulties. Well might President Hopkins say, " The only 
question is, what is it that consciousness gives ? If we say 
that it does thus give both the subject and the object, that 
simple affirmation sweeps away in a moment the whole basis 
of the ideal and skeptical philosophy. It becomes as the spear 



156 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

of Ithuriel, and its simple touch will change what seemed 
whole continents of solid speculation into mere banks of 
i German fog." We have learned, then, that it is not possible, 
or necessary, either to " perceive " or " conceive " the ter- 
minations of consciousness, because this involves the dis- 
covery, by mechanical faculties, of their own being and state 
before they became activities on the one hand, which is a 
contradiction, and on the other an utter transcending of the 
sphere of their capability, the attempt to do which would be 
a greater folly than would be that of the hand to see Jupiter. 
But we have intuited the law, which declares the necessity of 
a beginning for us and all creatures ; and we ever live in the 
light of the present end. When, then, Mr. Spencer says that 
" Consciousness implies perpetual change and the perpetual 
establishment of relations between its successive phases," we 
know that he has uttered a fundamental psychological error, 
in fact, that almost the opposite is the truth. Consciousness 
is the permanent, the abiding, the changeless. It is the light 
of the personal Eye. Into it all changes come ; but they are 
only incidental. In the finite and partial person, they come, 
because such person must grow ; and so, because of his par- 
tiality and incompleteness, they become necessary incidents ; 
but let there be a Person having all knowledge, who there- 
fore cannot learn, having all perfection, who therefore cannot 
change, and it is plain that these facts in no way interfere 
with his consciousness. All variety is immanent in its light, 
and no change can come into it because there is no change to 
come ; but this Person sees all his endowments at once, in the 
unity of this his light, just as we see some of our endowments 
in the unity of this our light. The change is not in the 
consciousness, but in the objects which come into it. This 
view also disposes of the theory that " any mental affection 
must be known as like these foregoing ones or unlike those " ; 
that, " if it is not thought of in connection with others — not 
distinguished or identified by comparison with others, it is not 
recognized — is not a state of consciousness at all." Such 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 157 

comparison we have found only incidental in consciousness, 
pertaining to things in the Sense and Understanding, and not 
essential. Thus does a true psychology dissipate all these 
difficulties as a true cosmology explained the perplexities 
" of Motion and Kest." 

Take another step and we can answer the question " What 
is this that thinks ? " It is a spiritual person. What, then, 
is a spiritual person ? A substance — a kind of force — the 
nature of which we need inquire about no further than to 
know that it is suitable to the use which is made of it, w r hich 
is organized, according to a set of constituting laws, into such 
spiritual person. The substance without the laws would be 
simple substance, and nothing more. The laws without the 
substance would be only laws, and could give no being having 
no ground in which to inhere. But the substance as ground 
and the complete set of laws as inhering in the ground, and 
being its organization when combined, become a spiritual 
person who thinks. The ego. that is the sense of personality, 
is only one of the forms of activity of this being, and therefore 
cannot be said to think. The pages now before us are all 
vitiated by the theory that " successive impressions and 
ideas constitute consciousness." Once attain to the true 
psychology of the person, and learn that consciousness is as 
stated above, — an abiding light into which modifications come, 
— and there arises no difficulty in believing in the reality of 
self, and in entirely justifying that belief by Eeason. Yea, 
more, from such a standpoint it is utter unreason, the height 
of folly, to doubt for an instant, for immanent and central 
in the light of Reason lies the solemn fact of man's selfhood. 
We arrive, then, directly at Mr. Spencer's conclusion, that 
" Clearly, a true cognition of self implies a state in which 
the knowing and the known are one — in which subject and 
object are identified," and we know that such a state is an 
actuality. Mr. Mansel may hold that such an assertion is 
the annihilation of both, but he is wholly wrong. The Savan- 
nah has crossed the Atlantic. 



158 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

We attain, then, exactly the opposite result from Mr. 
Speneer. We have seen that " Ultimate Scientific Ideas 
are all" presentative "of realities" which can "be compre- 
hended." We have, indeed, found it to be true, that, " after 
no matter how great a progress in the colligation of facts and 
the establishment of generalizations ever wider and wider, — 
after the merging of limited and derivative truths in truths 
that are larger and deeper, has been carried no matter how 
far, — the fundamental truth remains as much beyond reach 
as ever." But having learned this, we do not arrive at the 
conclusion that " the explanation of that which is explicable 
does but bring out into greater clearness the inexplicableness 
of that which remains behind." On the other hand we know 
that such a conclusion is erroneous, and that the method by 
which it is reached is a false method, and utterly irrelevant to 
the object sought Could this lesson but be thoroughly learned, 
Mr. Spencer's work, and our work, would not have been in 
vain. Only by a method differing from this in kind — a 
method in which there is no " colligation of facts," and no 
" generalizations " concluded therefrom, but a simple, direct 
insight into Pure Truth — can " the fundamental truth " be 
known ; and thus it may be known by every human soul. 
" God made man in his own image" In our scheme there 
is ample room for the man of Science, with the eye of Sense, 
to run through the Universe, and gather facts. With tele- 
scope and microscope, he may pursue them, and capture 
innumerable multitudes of them. But having done this, we 
count it folly to attempt to generalize truth therefrom. But 
holding up the facts in the clear light of Reason, and search- 
ing them through and through, we see in them the immutable 
principle, known by a spontaneous, immediate, intuitive knowl- 
edge to be immutable, and thus we " know the truth" 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 159 



u THE RELATIVITY OF ALL KNOWLEDGE." 

Tn the opening of this chapter, Mr. Spencer states the 
result, which, in his opinion, philosophy has attained as 
follows : " All possible conceptions have been one by one 
tried and found wanting ; and so the entire field of specula- 
tion has been gradually exhausted without positive result : 
the only result arrived at being the negative one above stated 
— that the reality existing behind all appearances is, and 
must ever be, unknown." He then sets down a considerable 
list of names of philosophers, who are claimed by Sir William 
Hamilton as supporters of that position. Such a parade of 
names may be grateful to the feelings of the Limitists, but 
it is no support to their cause. The questions at issue are of 
such a nature that no array of dignities, of learning, of pro- 
found opinions, can have a feather's weight in the decision. 
For instance, take Problem XL VII, of the first book of 
Euclid. What weight have human opinions with reference 
to its validity ? Though a thousand mathematicians should 
deny its truth, it would be just as convincing as now ; and when 
a thousand mathematicians assert its truth, they add no item to 
the vividness of the conviction. The school-boy, who never 
heard of one of them, when he first reads it, knows it must be 
so, and that this is an inevitable necessity, beyond the pos- 
sibility of any power or will to change. On principles simple, 
fixed, and final, just like those of mathematics, seen by the 
same Eye and known with the same intellectual certainty, 
and by logical processes just as pure, conclusive, demonstra- 
tive as those of geometry, and by such alone, can the questions 
now before us be settled. But though names and opinions 
have no weight in the final decision, though a demonstration is 
demanded and must be given, still it is interesting to note the 
absence of tw T o names, representatives of a class, which 
must ever awaken, among the devout and pure-hearted, at- 



160 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

tention and love, and whose teachings, however unnoticed 
by Mr. Spencer, are a leaven working in the minds and hearts 
of men, which develop with continually increasing distinct- 
ness the solemn and sublime truth, that the human mind is 
capable of absolute knowledge. Plato, with serious, yea, sad 
countenance, the butt of jeer and scoff from the wits and 
comedians of his day, went about teaching those who hung 
upon his lips, that in every human soul were Ideas which 
God had implanted, and which were final truth. And Jesus 
Christ, with a countenance more beautifully serious, more 
sweetly sad, said to those Jews which believed on him, " If 
ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed ; 
and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you 
free." It may seem to men who grope about in the dismal 
cavern of the animal nature — the Sense and Understand- 
ing — wise to refuse the light, and reject the truths of the 
Pure Reason and the God-man, and to call the motley 
conglomeration of facts which they gather, but cannot explain, 
philosophy ; but no soul which craves " the Higher Life " 
will, can be satisfied with such attainments. It yearns for, it 
cries after, yea, with ceaseless iteration it urges its supplica- 
tion for the highest truth ; and it shall attain to it, because 
God, in giving the tongue to cry, gave also the Eye to see. 
The Spiritual person in man, made in the very image of God, 
can never be satisfied till, stripped of the weight of the 
animal nature, it sees with its own Eye the Pure Reason, 
God as the Highest Truth. And to bring it by culture, by 
every possible manifestation of his wondrous nature, up to 
this high Mount of Vision, is one object of God in his system 
of the Universe. 

The teaching of the Word — that august personage, " who 
came forth from God, and went to God," has been alluded to 
above. It deserves more than an allusion, more than any 
notice which can be given it here. It is astonishing, though 
perhaps not wholly unaccountable, that the writings of the 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 161 

apostles John and Paul have received so little attention from 
the metaphysicians of the world, as declarations of meta- 
physical truths. Even the most devout students of them do 
not seem to have appreciated their inestimable value in this 
regard. The reason for this undoubtedly is, that their tran- 
scendent importance as declarations of religious truth has 
shone with such dazzling effulgence upon the eyes of those 
who have loved them, that the lesser, but harmoniously com- 
bining beams of a true spiritual philosophy have been un- 
noticed in the glory of the nobler light. It will not, there- 
fore, we trust, be deemed irreverent to say that, laying aside 
all questions of the Divinity of Christ, or of the inspiration 
of the Bible, and considering the writings of John and Paul 
merely as human productions, written at some time nobody 
knows when, and by some men nobody knows who, they are 
the most wonderful revelations, the profoundest metaphysical 
treatises the world has ever seen. In them the highest 
truths, those most difficult of attainment by processes of re- 
flection, are stated in simple, clear language, and they answer 
exactly to the teachings of the Reason, Upon this, President 
Hopkins says : " The identity which we found in the last 
lecture between the teaching of the constitution of man and 
the law of God, was not sought. The result was reached 
because the analysis would go there. I was myself surprised 
at the exactness of the coincidence." Nor is this coincidence 
to be observed simply in the statement of the moral law. In 
all questions pertaining to man's nature and state, the tw r o 
will be found in exact accord. No law is affirmed by either, 
but is accorded to by the other. In fine, whoever wrote the 
Book must have had an accurate and exhaustive knowledge 
of Man, about whom he wrote. Without any reference then 
to their religious bearings, but simply as expositions of meta- 
physical truths, the writings of the two authors named de- 
serve our most careful attention. What we seek for are laws, 
final, fixed laws, which are seen by a direct intuition to be 
11 



162 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

such ; and these writings are of great value, because they 
cultivate and assist the Reason in its search for these highest 
Truths. 

One need have no hesitation, then, in rejecting the authority 
of Mr. Spencer's names, aye, even if they were a thousand 
more. We seek for, and can obtain, that which he cannot 
give us — a demonstration ; which he cannot give us because 
he denies the very existence of that faculty by which alone 
a demonstration is possible. As his empiricism is worthless, 
so is his rationality. No " deduction " from any ''product of 
thought, or process of thought," is in any way applicable to 
the question in hand. Intuitions are the mental actions 
needed. Light is neither product nor process. We pass 
over, then, his whole illustration of the partridge. It proves 
nothing. He leads us through an interminable series of 
questions to no goal ; and says there is none. He gives the 
soul a stone, when it cries for bread. One sentence of his is 
doubtless true. " Manifestly, as the most general cognition 
at which we arrive cannot be reduced to a more general one, 
it cannot be understood." Of course not. When the Under- 
standing has attained to the last generalization by these very 
terms, it cannot go any farther. But by no means does his 
conclusion fbllow, that " Of necessity, therefore, explanation 
must eventually bring us down to the inexplicable. The 
deepest truth which we can get at must be unaccountable. 
Comprehension must become something other than compre- 
hension, before the ultimate fact can be comprehended." 
How shall we account for the last generalization, and show 
this conclusion to be false? Thus. Hitherto there have 
been, properly speaking, no comprehensions, only perceptions 
in the Sense and connections in the Understanding. " The 
sense distinguishes quality and conjoins quantity ; the under- 
standing connects phenomena ; the reason comprehends the 
whole operation of both." The Reason, then, overseeing the 
operations of the lower faculties, and possessing within itself 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 163 

the a priori laws in accordance with which they are, sees di- 
rectly and immediately why they are, and thus comprehends 
and accounts for them. It sees that there is an end to every 
process of generalization ; and it then sees, what the Under- 
standing could never guess, that after — in the order of our 
procedure — the last generalization there is an eternal truth, 
in accordance with which process and conclusion were and 
must be. There remains, then, no inexplicable, for the final 
truth is seen and known in its very self. 

The passages quoted at this point from Hamilton and 
Mansel have been heretofore examined, and need no further 
notice. We will pass on then to his subsequent reflections 
upon them. It is worthy of remark, as a general criticism 
upon these comments, that there is scarcely one, if there is a 
single expression in the remainder of this chapter, which does 
not refer to the animal nature and its functions. The illus- 
trations are from the material world, and the terms and ex- 
pressions are suited thereto. With reference to objects in 
the Sense, and connections in the Understanding, the "fun- 
damental condition of thought," which Mr. Spencer supplies, 
is unquestionably valuable. There is " likeness " as well as 
" relation, plurality, and difference." But observe that both 
these laws alike are pertinent only to the Sense and Under- 
standing, that they belong to things in nature, and con- 
sequently have no pertinence to the questions now before us. 
We are discussing ideas, not things ; and those are simple, 
and can only be seen, while these are complex, and may be 
perceived, distinguished, and conceived. If any one shall 
doubt that Mr. Spencer is wholly occupied with things in 
nature, it would seem that after having read p. 80, he could 
doubt no longer. " Animals," " species or genus," " mam- 
mals, birds, reptiles, or fishes," are objects by which he illus- 
trates his subject. And one is forced to exclaim, " How can 
he speak of such things when they have nothing to do with 
the matter in hand ? What have God and infinity and ab- 
soluteness to do with ' mammals, birds, reptiles, or fishes ' ? 



164 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

If we can know only these, why speak of those ? " It would 
seem that the instant they are thus set together and con- 
trasted, the soul must cry out with an irrepressible cry, " It 
is by an utterly different faculty, and in entirely other modes, 
that I dwell upon God and the questions concerning him. 
These modes of the animal nature, by which I know 6 mam- 
mals,' are different in kind from those of the spiritual person, 
by which I know God and the eternal truth." And when 
this distinction becomes clearly appreciated and fixed in one's 
mind, and the query arises, how could a man so confound 
the two, and make utter confusion of the subject, as the 
Limitists have done, he can hardly refrain from quoting 
Eomans I. 20 et seq. against them. 

Let us observe now Mr. Spencer's corollary. " A cogni- 
tion of the Real as distinguished from the Phenomenal must, 
if it exists, conform to this law of cognition in general. The 
First Cause, the Infinite, the Absolute, to be known at all, 
must be classed. To be positively thought of, it must be 
thought of as such or such — as of this or that kind." To 
begin with the law which is here asserted, is not a " general " 
law, and so does not lie upon all cognition. It is only a special 
law, and lies only upon a particular kind of cognition. This 
r as been already abundantly shown ; yet we reproduce one 
line of proof. No mathematical law comes under his law of 
cognition ; neither can he, nor any other Limitist, make it 
appear that it does so come. His law is law only for things 
in nature, and not for principles. Since then all ideas are 
known in themselves — are self-evident, and since God, in- 
finity, and absoluteness are ideas, they are known in them- 
selves, and need not be classed. So his corollary falls to the 
ground. Can we have any " sensible experience " of God ? 
Most certainly not. Yet we can have just as much a sensible 
experience of him as of any other person — of parent, wife, 
or child. Did you ever see a person — a soul ? No. Can 
you see — " have sensible experience of " — a soul ? No. 
What is it, then, that we have such experience of ? Plainly 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 165 

the body — that material frame through which the soul 
manifests itself. The Universe is that material system 
through which God manifests himself to those spiritual per- 
sons whom he has made ; and that manifestation is the same 
in kind as that of a created soul through the body which is 
given it. It follows then, — and not only from this, but it 
may be shown by further illustration, — that every other 
person is just as really inscrutable to us as God is ; and 
further, that, if we can study and comprehend the soul of our 
wife or child, we can with equal certainty study, and to some 
extent comprehend, the soul of God. Or, in other words, if 
man is only an animal nature, having a Sense and Under- 
standing, alLpersonality is an insoluble mystery ; all spiritual 
persons are alike utterly inscrutable. And this is so, be- 
cause, upon the hypothesis taken, man is destitute of any 
faculty which can catch a glimpse of such object. A 
Sense and Understanding can no more see, or in any possible 
manner take cognizance of, a spiritual person than a man 
born blind can see the sun. Again, we say he is destitute of 
the faculty. Will Mr. Spencer deny the fact of the idea of 
personality ? Will he assert that man has no such notion ? 
Let him once admit that he has, and in that admission is in- 
volved the admission of the reality of that faculty by which 
we know God, for the faculty which cognizes personality, 
and cognizes God, is one and the same. 

Although we do not like certain of Mr. Spencer's terms, 
yet, to please him, we will use them. Some conclusions, 
then, may be expressed thus : God as the Deity cannot be 
" classed " ; he is unique. This is involved in the very terms 
by which we designate him. Yet we cognize him, but this 
is by an immediate intuition, in which we know him as he is 
in himself. " We shall see him as he is," says the apostle ; 
and some foretastes of that transcendent revelation are vouch- 
safed us here on earth. But the infinite Person, as person, 
must be " assimilated " with other persons. Yet his infinity 
and absoluteness, as suck, cannot be " grouped." And yet 



166 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

again, as qualities, they can be " grouped " with other qualities. 
Unquestionably between the Creator, as such, and the created, 
as such, "there must be a distinction transcending any of 
the distinctions existing between different divisions of the 
created." God as self-existent differs in kind from man 
as dependent, and this difference continues irrevocable ; 
while that same God and that same man are alike in kind 
as persons. This is true, because all spiritual persons are 
composite beings ; and while the essential elements of a 
spiritual person are common to created persons and the un- 
created Person, there are other characteristics, not essential 
to personality, which belong some to the created, and some 
to the uncreated, and differentiate them. Or, in other words, 
God as person, and man as person, are alike. Yet they are 
diverse in kind, and so diverse in kind that it is out of the 
range of possibility for that diversity to be removed. How 
can this be explained ? Evidently thus. There are qualities 
transfusing the personality which cannot be interchangeable, 
and which constitute the diversity. Personality \sform of 
being. Qualities transfuse the form. Absoluteness and in- 
finity are qualities which belong to one Person, and are such 
that they thereby exclude the possibility of their belonging 
to any other person ; and so they constitute that one to whom 
they belong, unique and supreme. Dependence and partiality 
are also qualities of a spiritual person, but are qualities of 
the created spiritual person, and are such as must always 
subordinate that person to the other. In each instance it is, 
" in the nature of things," impossible for either to pass over 
and become the other. Each is what he is by the terms of 
his being, and must stay so. 

But from all this it by no means follows that the dependent 
spiritual person can have no knowledge of the independent 
spiritual Person. On the other hand, it is the high glory of 
the independent spiritual Person, that he can create another 
being " in his own image," to whom he can communicate a 
knowledge of himself. " Like as a father pitieth his chil- 



KNOW THE TEUTH. 167 

dren, so Jehovah pitieth them that fear him." Out of the 
fact of his Father-hood and our childhood, comes that solemn, 
and, to the loving soul, joyful fact, that he teaches us the 
highest knowledge just as really as our earthly parents teach 
us earthly knowledge. This he could not do if we had not 
the capacity to receive the knowledge ; and we could not 
have had the capacity, except he had been able, in " the 
nature of things," and willing to bestow it upon us. While, 
then, God as " the Unconditioned cannot be classed," and so 
as unconditioned we do not know him u as of such or such 
kind," after the manner of the Understanding, yet we may, 
do, " see him as he is," do know that he is, and is uncon- 
ditioned, through the insight of the Reason, the eye of the 
spiritual person, and what it is to be unconditioned. 

We now reach a passage which has filled us with unqual- 
ified amazement. As much as we had familiarized our- 
selves with the materialistic teachings of the Limitists, we 
confess that we were utterly unprepared to meet, even in 
Mr. Spencer's writings, a theory of man so ineffably degrad- 
ing, and uttered with so calm and naive an unconsciousness 
of the degradation it involved, as the following. Although 
for want of room his illustrations are omitted, it is believed 
that the following extracts give a fair and ample presentation 
of his doctrine. 

" All vital actions, considered not separately but in their 
ensemble, have for their final purpose the balancing of cer- 
tain outer processes by certain inner processes. 

" There are unceasing external forces, tending to bring the 
matter of which organic bodies consist, into that state of 
stable equilibrium displayed by inorganic bodies ; there are 
internal forces by which this tendency is constantly antag- 
onized ; and the perpetual changes which constitute Life 
may be regarded as incidental to the maintenance of the 
antagonism 

" When we contemplate the lower kinds of life, we see that 
the correspondences thus maintained are direct and simple ; 



168 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

as in a plant, the vitality of which mainly consists in osmotic 
and chemical actions responding to the coexistence of light, 
heat, water, and carbonic acid around it. But in animals, 
and especially in the higher orders of them, the correspond- 
ences become extremely complex, Materials for growth 
and repair not being, like those which plants require, every- 
where present, but being widely dispersed and under special 
forms, have to be formed, to be secured, and to be reduced to 
a fit state for assimilation 

" What is that process by which food when swallowed is 
reduced to a fit form for assimilation, but a set of mechanical 
and chemical actions responding to the mechanical and 
chemical actions which distinguish the food ? Whence it 
becomes manifest, that, while Life in its simplest form is the 
correspondence of certain inner physico-chemical actions with 
certain outer physico-chemical actions, each advance to a 
higher form of Life consists in a better preservation of this 
primary correspondence by the establishment of other cor- 
respondences. Divesting this conception of all superfluities, 
and reducing it to its most abstract shape, we see that Life 
is definable as the continuous adjustment of internal rela- 
tions to external relations. And when we so define it, we 
discover that the physical and the psychial life are equally 
comprehended by the definition. We perceive that this, 
which we call intelligence, shows itself when the external 
relations to w T hich the internal ones are adjusted begin to be 
numerous, complex, and remote in time and space ; that every 
advance in Intelligence essentially consists in the establish- 
ment of more varied, more complete, and more involved ad- 
justments ; and that even the highest achievements of sci- 
ence are resolvable into mental relations of coexistence and 
sequence, so coordinated as exactly to tally w^ith certain rela- 
tions of coexistence and sequence that occur externally. . . . 

" And lastly let it be noted that what we call truth, guid- 
ing us to successful action and the consequent maintenance 
of life, is simply the accurate correspondence of subjective 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 169 

to objective relations ; while error, leading to failure and 
therefore towards death, is the absence of such accurate cor- 
respondence. 

" If, then, Life in all its manifestations, inclusive of Intel- 
ligence in its highest forms, consists in the continuous ad- 
justment of internal relations to external relations, the neces- 
sarily relative character of our knowledge becomes obvious. 
The simplest cognition being the establishment of some con- 
nection between subjective states, answering to some connec- 
tion between objective agencies ; and each successively more 
complex cognition being the establishment of some more 
involved connection of such states, answering to some more 
involved connection of such agencies ; it is clear that the 
process, no matter how far it be carried, can never bring 
within the reach of Intelligence either the states themselves 
or the agencies themselves." 

Or, to condense Mr. Spencer's whole teaching into a few 
plain every-day words, Man is an animal, and only an 
animal, differing nowhat from the dog and chimpanzee, 
except in the fact that his life " consists in the establishment 
of more varied, more complete, and more involved adjust- 
ments," than the life of said dog and chimpanzee. Mark 
particularly the sententious diction of this newly arisen sage. 
Forget not one syllable of the profound and most important 
knowledge he would impart. " Life in all its manifestations, 
inclusive of Intelligence in its highest forms, consists in the 
continuous adjustment of internal relations to external rela- 
tions." See, there is not a limit, not a qualification to the 
assertion ! Now turn back a page or two, reader, if thou 
hast this wonderful philosophy by thee, and gazing, as into 
a cage in a menagerie, see the being its author w r ould teach 
thee that thou art. From the highest to the lowest forms, 
life is one. In its lower forms, life is a set of " direct and 
simple " " correspondences." " But in animals, and especially 
in the higher orders of them" and, of course, most espe- 
cially in the human animal as the highest order, " the cor- 



170 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

respondences become extremely complex." As much as to 
say, reader, you are not exactly a plant, nor are you yet of 
quite so low a type as the chimpanzee aforesaid ; but the 
difference is no serious matter. You do not differ half as 
much from the chimpanzee as the chimpanzee does from the 
forest he roves in. All the difference there is between you 
and him is, that the machinery by which " the continuous 
adjustment of internal relations to external relations " is car- 
ried on, is more " complex " in you than in the chimpanzee. 
He roams the forest, inhabits some cave or hollow tree, and 
lives on the food which nature spontaneously offers to his 
hairy hand. You cut down the forest, construct a house, 
and live on the food which some degree of skill has prepared. 
He constructs no clothing, nor any covering to shield him from 
the inclemency of the weather, but is satisfied with tawny, 
shaggy covering, which nature has provided. You on the 
contrary are destitute of such a covering, and rob the sheep, 
and kill the silk-worm, to supply the lack. But in all this 
there is no difference in kind. The mechanism by which 
life is sustained in you is more " complex," it is true, than 
that by which life is sustained in him ; there arise, therefore, 
larger needs, and the corresponding " intelligence " to supply 
those needs. But sweet thought, cheering thought, oh how 
it supports the soul ! Your life in its highest form is only 
this animal life, — is only the constructive force by which 
that " extremely complex " machinery carries on " the con- 
tinuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations." 
All other notions of life are " superfluities." 

Reader, in view of the teaching of this new and widely 
heralded sage, how many " superfluities " must you and I 
strip off from our " conception " of life ! And with what 
bitter disappointment and deep sadness should we take up 
our lamentation for man, and say : How art thou fallen, oh 
man ! thou noblest denizen of earth ; yea, how art thou cast 
down to the ground. But a little ago we believed thee a 
spiritual being ; that thou hadst a nature too noble to rot 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 171 

with the beasts among the clods ; that thou wast made fit to 
live with angels and thy Creator, God. But a little ago we 
believed thee possessed of a psychical life — a soul ; that thou 
wouldst live forever beyond the stars ; and that this soul's 
life was wholly occupied in the consideration of " heavenly 
and divine things." A little ago we believed in holiness, and 
that thou, consecrating thyself to pure and loving employ- 
ments, shouldst become purer and more beautiful, nobler and 
more lovely, until perfect love should cast out all fear, and 
thou shouldst then see God face to face, and rejoice in the 
sunlight of his smiling countenance. But all this is changed 
now. Our belief has been found to be a cheat, a bitter 
mockery to the soul. We have sat at the feet of the English 
sage, and learned how dismally different is our destiny. 
Painful is it, oh reader, to listen ; and the words of our 
teacher sweep like a sirocco over the heart ; yet we cannot 
choose but hear. 

" The pyschical life " — the life of the soul, " the immortal 
spark of fire/' — and the physical life " are equally definable 
as the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external 
relations." We had supposed that intelligence in its highest 
forms was wholly occupied with the contemplation of God 
and his laws, and the great end of being, and all those tremen- 
dous questions which we had thought fitted to occupy the 
activities of a spiritual person. We are undeceived now. 
We find we have shot towards the pole opposite to the truth. 
Now " we perceive that this which we call Intelligence shows 
itself when the external relations to which the internal ones 
, are adjusted begin to be numerous, complex, and remote in 
time or space ; that every advance in Intelligence essentially 
consists in the establishment of more varied, more complete, 
and more involved adjustments ; and that even the highest 
achievements of science are ^solvable into mental relations 
of coexistence and sequence, so coordinated as exactly to tally 
with certain relations of coexistence and sequence that occur 
externally." In such relations consists the life of the " cater- 



172 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

pillar." In such relations, only a little "more complex" con- 
sists the life of " the sparrow." Such relations only does 
" the fowler " observe ; such only does " the chemist " know. 
This is the path by which we are led to the last, the highest 
" truth " which man can attain. Thus do we learn " that what 
we call truth, guiding us to successful action, and the conse- 
quent maintenance of life, is simply the accurate correspond- 
ence of subjective to objective relations ; while error, lead- 
ing to failure and therefore towards death, is the absence 
of such accurate correspondence." What a noble life, oh, 
reader, what an exalted destiny thine is here declared to 
be ! The largest effort of thine intelligence, " the highest 
achievement of science," yea, the total object of the life of 
thy soul, — thy " psychial " life, — is to attain such exceeding 
skill in the construction of a shelter, in the fitting of apparel, 
in the preparation of food, in a word, in securing " the ac- 
curate correspondence of subjective to objective relations," 
and thus in attaining the " truth " which shall guide " us to 
successful action and the consequent maintenance of life," 
that we shall secure forever our animal existence on earth. 
Study patiently thy lesson, oh human animal ! Con it o'er 
and o'er. Who knows but thou mayest yet attain to this 
acme of the perfection of thy nature, though it be far below 
what thou hadst once fondly expected, — mayest attain a 
perfect knowledge of the " truth" and a perfect skill in the 
application of that truth, i, e. in " the continuous adjustment 
of internal relations to external relations " ; and so be guided 
" to successful action, and the consequent maintenance of 
life," whereby thou shalt elude forever that merciless hunter 
who pursues thee, — the grim man-stalker, the skeleton Death. 
But when bending all thy energies, yea, all the powers of 
thy soul, to this task, thou mayest recur at some unfortunate 
moment to the dreams and aspirations which have hitherto 
lain like golden sunlight on thy pathway. Let no vain re- 
gret for what seemed thy nobler destiny ever sadden thy day, 
or deepen the darkness of thy night. True, thou didst deem 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 173 

thyself capable of something higher than "the continuous 
adjustment of internal relations to external relations " ; didst 
often occupy thyself with contemplating those " things which 
eye hath not seen, nor ear heard " ; didst deem thyself a son 
of God, and " a joint-heir with Jesus Christ," " of things in- 
corruptible and undefiled, and which fade not away, eternal 
in the heavens " ; didst sometimes seem to see, with faith's 
triumphant gaze, those glorious scenes which thou wouldst 
traverse when in the spirit-land thou shouldst lead a pure 
spiritual life with other spirits, where all earthliness had been 
stripped off, all tears had been wiped away, and perfect holi- 
ness was thine through all eternity. But all these visions 
were only dreams ; _ they wholly deluded thee. We have 
learned from the lips of this latest English sage that thy god 
is thy belly, and that thou must mind earthly things, so as 
to keep up " the continuous adjustment of internal relations to 
external relations." Such being thy lot, and to fulfil such a 
lot being " the highest achievement of science," permit not 
thyself to be disturbed by those old-fashioned and sometimes 
troublesome notions that " truth " and those " achievements " 
pertained to a spiritual person in spiritual relations to God as 
the moral Governor of the Universe ; that man was bound to 
know the truth and obey it ; that his " errors " were violations 
of perfect law, — the truth he knew, — were crimes against 
Him who is " of too pure eyes to behold iniquity, and cannot 
look upon sin with the least degree of allowance " ; that for 
these crimes there impended a just penalty — an appalling 
punishment ; and that the only real " failure " w r as the failure 
to repent of and forsake the crimes, and thus escape the 
penalty. Far other is the fact, as thou wilt learn from this 
wise man's book. As he teaches us, the only " error " we 
can make, is, to miss in maintaining perfectly " the continuous 
adjustment of internal relations to external relations," — is 
to eat too much roast beef and plum-pudding at dinner, or to 
wear too scanty or too thick clothing, or to expose one's self 
imprudently in a storm, or by some other carelessness which 



174 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

may produce " the absence of such accurate correspondence * 
as shall secure unending life, and so lead to his only " failure * 
— the advance " towards death." When, then, oh reader ! by 
some unfortunate mischance, some " error " into which thine 
ignorance hath led thee, thou hast rendered thy " failure * in- 
evitable, and art surely descending "towards death," hesi- 
tate not to sing with heedless hilarity the old Epicurean 
song, " Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." 

Sing and be gay 

The livelong day, 

Thinking no whit of to-morrow. 

Enjoy while you may 

All pleasure and play, 

For after death is no sorrow. 

Thou hast committed thine only " error " in not maintain- 
ing " the accurate correspondence " ; thou hast fallen upon 
thine only " failure," the inevitable advance " towards death." 
Than death no greater evil can befall thee, and that is already 
sure. Then let " dance and song," and " women and wine," 
bestow some snatches of pleasure upon thy fleeting days. 

Delightful philosophy, is it not, reader ? Poor unfortunate 
man, and especially poor, befooled, cheated, hopeless Christian 
man, who has these many years cherished those vain, deceit- 
ful dreams of which we spoke a little ago ! To be brought 
down from such lofty aspirations ; to be made to know that 
he is only an animal ; that " Life in all its manifestations, 
inclusive of Intelligence in its highest forms, consists in the 
continuous adjustment of internal relations to external rela- 
tions." Do you not join with me in pitying him ? 

And such is the philosophy which is heralded to us from 
over the sea as the newly found and wonderful truth, which 
is to satisfy the hungering soul of man and still its persistent 
cry for bread. And this is the teacher, mocking that painful 
cry with such chaff, whom newspaper after newspaper, and 
periodical after periodical on this side the water, even to those 
we love best and cherish most, have pronounced one of the 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 175 

profoundest essayists of the day. Perhaps he can give us 
some sage remarks upon " laughter/' as it is observed in the 
human animal, and on that point compare therewith other 
animals. But, speaking in all sincerity after the manner of 
the Book of Common Prayer, we can but say, " From all 
such philosophers and philosophies, good Lord deliver us." 

Few, perhaps none of our readers, will desire to see a 
denial in terms of such a theory. When a man, aspiring to 
be a philosopher, advances the doctrine that not only is " Life 
in its simplest form" — the animal life — " the correspondence 
of certain inner physico-chemical actions with certain outer 
physico-chemical actions," but that " each advance to a higher 
form of Life consists in a better preservation of this primary 
correspondence " ; and when, proceeding further, and to be 
explicit, he asserts that not only " the physical," but also " the 
psychical life are equally" but "the continuous adjustment 
of internal relations to external relations " ; and when, still 
further to insult man, and to utter his insult in the most 
positive, extreme, and unmistakable terms, he asserts " that 
even the highest achievements of science are resolvable into 
mental relations of coexistence and sequence, so coordinated 
as exactly to tally with certain relations of coexistence and 
sequence that occur externally," — that is, that the highest 
science is the attainment of a perfect cuisine ; in a word, 
when a human being in this nineteenth century offers to his 
fellows as the loftiest attainment of philosophy the tenet that 
the highest form of life cognizable by man is an animal life, 
and that man can have no other knowledge of himself than as 
an animal, of a little higher grade, it is true, than other animals, 
but not different in kind, then the healthy soul, when such a 
doctrine is presented to it, will reject it as instantaneously as 
a healthy stomach rejects a roll of tobacco. 

With what a sense of relief does one turn from a system 
of philosophy which, when stripped of its garb of well-chosen 
words and large-sounding, plausible phrases, appears in such 
vile shape and hideous proportions, to the teachings of that 



176 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

pure and noble instructor of our youth, that man who, by his 
gentle, benignant mien, so beautifully illustrates the spirit 
and life of the Apostle John, — Eev. Mark Hopkins, D. D., 
President of Williams College. No one who has read his 
" Lectures on Moral Science," and no lover of truth should 
fail to do so, will desire an apology for inserting the following 
extract, wherein is presented a theory upon which the soul 
of man can rest, as at home the soldier rests, who has just 
been released from the Libby or Salisbury charnel-house. 

" And here, again, we have three great forces with their 
products. These are the vegetable, the animal, and the 
rational life. 

" Of these, vegetable life is the lowest. Its products are as 
strictly conditional for animal life as chemical affinity is for 
vegetable, for the animal is nourished by nothing that has 
not been previously elaborated by the vegetable. 6 The profit 
of the earth is for all ; the king himself is served by the 
field/ 

" Again, we have the animal and sensitive life, capable of 
enjoyment and suffering, and having the instincts necessary 
to its preservation. This, as man is now constituted, is con- 
ditional for Ms rational life. The rational has its roots in 
that, and manifests itself only through the organization which 
that builds up. 

" We have, then, finally and highest of all, this rational and 
moral life, by which man is made in the image of God. In 
man, as thus constituted, we first find a being who is capable 
of choosing his own end, or, rather, of choosing or rejecting 
the end indicated by his whole nature. This is moral free- 
dom, and in this is the precise point of transition from all 
that is below to that which is highest. For everything below 
man the end is necessitated. Whatever choice there may be 
in the agency of animals of means for the attainment of their 
end, — and they have one somewhat wide, — they have none 
in respect to the end itself. This, for our purpose, and for 
all purposes, is the characteristic distinction, so long sought, 



KNOW THE TEUTH. 177 

between man and the brute. Man determines his own end ; 
the end of the brute is necessitated. Up to man everything 
is driven to its end by a force working from without or from 
behind ; but for him the pillar of cloud and of fire puts itself 
in front, and he follows it or not, as he chooses. 

" In the above cases it will be seen that the process is one 
of the addition of new forces, with a constant limitation of 

the field within which the forces act It is to 

be noticed, however, that while the field of each added and 
superior force is narrowed, yet nothing is dropped. Each 
lower force shoots through, and combines itself with all that 
is higher. Because he is rational, man is not the less subject 
to gravitation and cohesion and chemical affinity. He has 
also the organic life that belongs to the animal. In him none 
of these are dropped ; but the rational life is united with and 
superinduced upon all these, so that man is not only a 
microcosm, but is the natural head and ruler of the world. 
He partakes of all that is below him, and becomes man by 

the addition of something higher Here, then, is our 

model and law. Have we a lower sensitive and animal 
nature ? Let that nature be cherished and expanded by all 
its innocent and legitimate enjoyments, for it is an end. 
But — and here we find the limit — let it be cherished only 
as subservient to the higher intellectual life, for it is also a 
means." The italics are ours. 

Satisfactory, true, and self-sustained as is this theory, — and 
it is one which like a granite Gothic spire lifts itself high and 
calm into the atmosphere, standing firm and immovable in 
its own clear and self-evident truth, unshaken by a thousand 
assaulting materialistic storms, — we would buttress it with 
the utterances of other of the earth's noble ones ; and this 
we do not because it is in any degree needful, but because 
our mind loves to linger round the theme, and to gather the 
concurrent thought of various rarely endowed minds upon 
this subject. Exactly in point is the following — one of 
many passages which might be selected from the works of 
12 



178 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

that profoundest of English metaphysicians and theologians, 
S. T. Coleridge : — 

" And here let me observe that the difficulty and delicacy 
of this investigation are greatly increased by our not con- 
sidering the understanding (even our own) in itself, and as 
it would be were it not accompanied with and modified by 
the cooperation of the will, the moral feeling, and that faculty, 
perhaps best distinguished by the name of Reason, of deter- 
mining that which is universal and necessary, of fixing laws 
and principles whether speculative or practical, and of con- 
templating a final purpose or end. This intelligent will — 
having a self-conscious purpose, under the guidance and light 
of the reason, by which its acts are made to bear as a whole 
upon some end in and for itself, and to which the understand- 
ing is subservient as an organ or the faculty of selecting and 
appropriating the means — seems best to account for that 
progressiveness of the human race, which so evidently marks 
an insurmountable distinction and impassable barrier between 
man and the inferior animals, but which would be inexplicable, 
were there no other difference than in the degree of their intel- 
lectual faculties" — Works,Y ol. I. p. 371. The italics are ours. 

The attention of the reader may with profit be also directed 
to the words of another metaphysician, who has been much 
longer known, and has enjoyed a wider fame than either of 
those just mentioned ; and whose teachings, however little 
weight they may seem to have with Mr. Spencer, have been 
these many years, and still are received and studied with 
profound respect and loving carefulness by multitudes of 
persons. We refer to the apostle Paul, " There is, there- 
fore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, 
who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." That is, 
who do not walk after the law of the animal nature, but who 
do walk after the law of the spiritual person, for it is of this 
great psychological distinction that the apostle so fully and 
continually speaks. " For they that are after the flesh do 
mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 179 

spirit, the things of the spirit. For the minding of the flesh 
is death, but the minding of the spirit is life and peace ; be- 
cause the minding of the flesh is enmity against God, for it 
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." 
Romans VIII. 1, 5, 6, 7. This I say, then, " Walk in the 
spirit, and fulfil not the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth 
against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh : and these 
are contrary the one to the other." — Galatians V. 16, 17. 

Upon these passages it should be remarked, by way of ex- 
planation, that our translators in writing the word spirit with 
a capital, and thus intimating that it is the Holy Spirit of 
God which is meant, have led their readers astray. The 
apostle's repeated use of that term, in contrasting the flesh 
with the spirit, appears decisive of the fact that he is con- 
trasting, in all such passages, the animal nature with the 
spiritual person. But if any one is startled by this position 
and thinks to reject it, let him bear in mind that the law of 
the spiritual person in man and of the Holy Spirit of God is 
identical. 

The reader will hardly desire from us what his own mind 
will have already accomplished — the construction in our own 
terms, and the contrasting of the system above embodied 
with that presented by Mr. Spencer. The human being, 
Man, is a twofold being, " flesh " and " spirit" an animal 
nature and a spiritual person. In the animal nature are the 
Sense and the Understanding. In the spiritual person are 
the Reason, the spiritual Sensibilities, and the Will. The ani- 
mal nature is common to man and the brutes. The spiritual 
person is common to man and God. It is manifest, then, that 
there is " an insurmountable distinction and impassable bar- 
rier " not only " between man and the inferior animals," but 
between man as spiritual person, and man as animal nature, 
and that this is a greater distinction than any other in the 
Universe, except that which exists between the Creator and 
the created. What relation, then, do these so widely diverse 
natures bear to each other ? Evidently that which President 



180 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

Hopkins has assigned. " Because he is rational, man is not 
the less subject to gravitation and cohesion and chemical affin- 
ity. He has also the organic life that belongs to the plant, and 
the sensitive and instinctive life that belongs to the animal." 
Thus far his life " is the correspondence of certain inner phys- 
ico-chemical actions with certain outer physico-chemical ac- 
tions," — undoubtedly " consists in the continuous adjustment of 
internal relations to external relations " ; and being the highest 
order of animal, his life " consists in the establishment of more 
varied, more complete, and more involved adjustments " than 
that of any other animal. What, then, is this life for ? " This, 
as man is now constituted, is conditional for his rational life? 
" The rational life is united with and superinduced upon all 
these/ 9 As God made man, and in the natural order, the 
" flesh," the animal life, is wholly subordinate to the " spirit," 
the spiritual life. And the spirit, or spiritual person of which 
Paul writes so much, — does this also, this " Intelligence in its 
highest form," consist " in the continuous adjustment of in- 
ternal relations to external relations " ? Are the words of 
the apostle a cheat, a lie, when he says, "For if ye live 
after the flesh, ye shall die ; but if ye through the spirit" — , 
i. e. by living with the help of the Holy Spirit, in accordance 
with the law of the spiritual person — " do mortify the deeds 
of the body, ye shall live ? " And are Mr. Spencer's words, in 
which he teaches exactly the opposite doctrine, true ? wherein 
lie says : " And lastly let it be noted that what we call truth," 
&c, (see ante, p. 168,) wherein he teaches that " if ye live after 
the flesh," if you are guided by " truth" if you are able per- 
fectly to maintain " the accurate correspondence of subjective 
to objective relations," " ye shall not surely die," you will 
attain to what is successful action, the preservation of " life," 
of " the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external 
relations," of the animal life, and thus your bodies will live 
forever — the highest good for man ; but if you " mortify the 
deeds of the body," if you pay little heed to " the continuous 
adjustment of internal relations to external relations," you 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 181 

will meet with " error , leading to failure and therefore towards 
death," — the death of the body, the highest evil which can 
befall man, — and so "ye shall" not "live." Proceeding in 
the direction already taken, we find that in his normal con- 
dition the spiritual person would not be chiefly, much less 
exclusively, occupied with attending to " the continuous ad- 
justment of internal relations to external relations," but would 
only regard these in so far as is necessary to preserve the 
body as the ground through which, in accordance with the 
present dispensation of God's providence, that person may 
exert himself and employ his energies upon those objects 
which belong to his peculiar sphere, even the laws and duties 
of spiritual beings. The person would indeed employ his 
superior faculties to assist the lower nature in the preservation 
of its animal life, but this only as a means. God has or- 
dained that through this means that person shall develop 
and manifest himself; yet the life, continuance in being, of 
the soul, is in no way dependent on this means. Strip away 
the whole animal nature, take from man his body, his Sense 
and Understanding, leave him — as he would then be — with 
no possible medium of communication with the Universe, and 
he, the I am, the spiritual person, would remain intact, as 
active as ever. He would have lost none of his capacity to 
see laws and appreciate their force ; he would feel the binding- 
ness of obligation just as before ; and finally, he would be just 
as able as in the earlier state to make a choice of an ultimate 
end, though he would be unable to make a single motion 
towards putting that choice into effect. The spiritual person, 
then, being such that he has in himself no element of decom- 
position, has no need, for the preservation of his own existence, 
to be continually occupied with efforts to maintain " the ac- 
curate correspondence of subjective to objective relations." 
Yet activity is his law, and, moreover, an activity having 
objects which accord with this his indestructible nature. With 
what then will such a being naturally occupy himself? There 
is for him no danger of decay. He possesses within himself 



182 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

the laws and ideals of his action. As such, and created, he 
is near of kin to that august Being in whose image he was 
created. His laws are the created person's laws. The end 
of the Creator should be that also of the created. But God 
is infinite, while the soul starts a babe, an undeveloped germ, 
and must begin to learn at the alphabet of knowledge. What 
nobler, what more sublime and satisfactory occupation could 
this being, endowed with the faculties of a God, find, than to 
employ all his power in the contemplation of the eternal laws 
of the Universe, *. e. to the acquisition of an intimate ac- 
quaintance with himself and God ; and to bend all his ener- 
gies to the realization by his own efforts of that part in the 
Universe which God had assigned him, *". e., to accord his 
will entirely with God's will. This course of life, a spiritual 
person standing in his normal relation to an animal nature, 
would pursue as spontaneously as if it were the law of his 
being. But this which we have portrayed is not the course 
which human beings do pursue. By no means. One great 
evil, at least, that "the Fall" brought upon the race of man, 
is, that human beings are born into the world with the 
spiritual person all submerged by the animal nature ; or, to , 
use Paul's figure, the spirit is enslaved by the flesh ; and such 
is the extent of this that many, perhaps most, men are born 
and grow up and die, and never know that they have any 
souls ; and finally there arise, as there have arisen through all 
the ages, just such philosophers as Sir William Hamilton and 
Mr. Spencer, who in substance deny that men are spiritual 
persons at all, who say that the highest knowledge is a 
generalization in the Understanding, a form of a knowledge 
common to man and the brutes, and that " the highest achieve- 
ments of science are resolvable into mental relations of co- 
existence and sequence, so coordinated as exactly to tally 
with certain relations of coexistence and sequence that occur 
externally." It is this evil, organic in man, that Paul por- 
trays so vividly ; and it is against men who teach such doc- 
trines that he thunders his maledictions. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 183 

We have spoken above of the spiritual person as diverse 
from, superior to, and superinduced upon, the animal nature. 
This is his position in the logical order. We have also spoken 
of him as submerged under the animal nature, as enslaved 
to the flesh. By such figures do we strive to express the 
awfully degraded condition in which every human being is 
born into the world. And mark, this is simply a natural 
degradation. Let us then, as philosophers, carry our ex- 
amination one step farther and ask : In this state of things 
what would be the fitting occupation of the spiritual person. 
Is it that " continuous adjustment" ? He turns from it with 
loathing. Already he has served the " flesh " a long and 
grievous bondage. Manifestly, then, he should struggle with 
all his might to regain his normal condition to become natu- 
rally good as well as morally good, — he should fill his soul 
with thoughts of God, and then he should make every rational 
exertion to induce others to follow in his footsteps. 

We attain, then, a far different result from Mr. Spencer. 
" The highest achievements of science" for us, our "truth," 
guiding us " to successful action," is that pure a priori truth, 
the eternal law of God which is written in us, and given to 
us for our guidance to what is truly " successful action," — 
the accordance of our wills with the will of God. 

What we now reach, and what yet remains to be considered 
of this chapter, is that passage in which Mr. Spencer enounces, 
as he believes, a new principle of philosophy, a principle 
which will symmetrize and complete the Hamiltonian system, 
and thus establish it as the true and final science for man- 
kind. Since we do not view this principle in the same light 
with Mr. Spencer, and especially since it is our intention to 
turn it upon what he has heretofore written, and demolish 
that with it, there might arise a feeling in many minds that 
the whole passage should be quoted, that there might be no 
doubt as to his meaning. This we should willingly do, did 
our space permit. Yet it seems not in the least necessary. 
That part of the passage which contains the gist of the sub- 



184 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

ject, followed by a candid epitome of his arguments and illus- 
trations, would appear to be ample for a fair and sufficiently 
full presentation of his theory, and for a basis upon which 
we might safely build our criticism. These then will be 
given. 

" There still remains the final question — What must we say 
concerning that which transcends knowledge? Are we to 
rest wholly in the consciousness of phenomena ? Is the re- 
sult of inquiry to exclude utterly from our minds everything 
but the relative ; or must we also believe in something be- 
yond the relative ? 

" The answer of pure logic is held to be, that by the limits 
of our intelligence we are rigorously confined within the 
relative ; and that anything transcending the relative can be 
thought of only as a pure negation, or as a non-existence. 
' The absolute is conceived merely by a negation of con- 
ceivability,' writes Sir William Hamilton. ' The Absolute 
and the Infinite J says Mr. Mansel, ' are thus, like the In- 
conceivable and the Imperceptible, names indicating, not an 
object of thought or of consciousness at all, but the mere 
absence of the conditions under which consciousness is possi- 
ble.' From each of which extracts may be deduced the con- 
clusion, that, since reason cannot warrant us in affirming the 
positive existence of what is cognizable only as a negation, 
we cannot rationally affirm the positive existence of anything 
beyond phenomena. 

" Unavoidable as this conclusion seems, it involves, I think, 
a grave error. If the premiss be granted, the inference must 
doubtless be admitted ; but the premiss, in the form presented 
by Sir William Hamilton and Mr. Mansel, is not strictly 
true. Though, in the foregoing pages, the arguments used 
by these writers to show that the Absolute is unknowable, 
have been approvingly quoted ; and though these arguments 
have been enforced by others equally thoroughgoing, yet 
there remains to be stated a qualification, which saves us 
from that scepticism otherwise necessitated. It is not to be 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 185 

denied that so long as we confine ourselves to the purely 
logical aspect of the question, the propositions quoted above 
must be accepted in their entirety ; but when we contemplate 
its more general, or psychological aspect, we find that these 
propositions are imperfect statements of the truth ; omitting, 
or rather excluding, as they do, an all-important fact. To 
speak specifically : — Besides that definite consciousness of 
which Logic formulates the laws, there is also an indefinite 
consciousness which cannot be formulated. Besides complete 
thoughts, and besides the thoughts which, though incomplete, 
admit of completion, there are thoughts which it is impossible 
to complete, and yet which are still real, in the sense that 
they are normal affections of the intellect. 

" Observe in the first place, that every one of the arguments 
by which the relativity of our knowledge is demonstrated, 
distinctly postulates the positive existence of something be- 
yond the relative. To say that we cannot know the Absolute, 
is, by implication, to affirm that there is an Absolute. In 
the very denial of our power to learn what the Absolute is, 
there lies hidden the assumption that it is ; and the making 
of this assumption proves that the Absolute has been present 
to the mind, not as a nothing but as a something. Similarly 
with every step in the reasoning by which this doctrine is 
upheld. The Noumenon, everywhere named as the antithesis 
of the Phenomenon, is throughout necessarily thought of as 
an actuality. It is rigorously impossible to conceive that 
our knowledge is a knowledge of Appearances only, without 
at the same time conceiving a Reality of which they are 
appearances ; for appearance without reality is unthinkable." 
After carrying on this train of argument a little further, he 
reaches this just and decisive result. " Clearly, then, the 
very demonstration that a definite consciousness of the Ab- 
solute is impossible to us, unavoidably presupposes an in- 
definite consciousness of it." Carrying the argument further, 
he says : " Perhaps the best way of showing that, by the 
necessary conditions of thought, we are obliged to form a 



186 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

positive though vague consciousness of this which transcends 
distinct consciousness, is to analyze our conception of the 
antithesis between Relative and Absolute." He follows the 
presentation of certain " antinomies of thought" with an ex- 
tract from Sir William Hamilton's words, in which the logician 
enounces his doctrine that in " correlatives " " the positive 
alone is real, the negative is only an abstraction of the other" ; 
or, in other words, the one gives a substance of some kind in 
the mind, the other gives simply nothingness, void, absolute 
negation. Criticizing this, Mr. Spencer is unquestionably 
right in saying : " Now the assertion that of such contradic- 
tories ' the negative is only an abstraction of the other ' — 
6 is nothing else than its negation' — is not true. In such 
correlatives as Equal and Unequal, it is obvious enough that 
the negative concept contains something besides the negation 
of the positive one ; for the things of which equality is denied 
are not abolished from consciousness by the denial. And the 
fact overlooked by Sir William Hamilton is, that the like 
holds, even with those correlatives of which the negative is in- 
conceivable, in the strict sense of the word." Proceeding with 
his argument, he establishes, by ample illustration, the fact 
that a " something constitutes our consciousness of the Non- 
relative or Absolute." He afterwards shows plainly by quo- 
tations, " that both Sir William Hamilton and Mr. Mansel 
do," in certain places, " distinctly imply that our conscious- 
ness of the Absolute, indefinite though it is, is positive not 
negative." Further on he argues thus : " Though Philosophy 
condemns successively each attempted conception of the Ab- 
solute ; though it proves to us that the Absolute is not this, 
nor that, nor that; though in obedience to it we negative, 
one after another, each idea as it arises ; yet as we cannot 
expel the entire contents of consciousness, there ever remains 
behind an element which passes into new shapes. The con- 
tinual negation of each particular form and limit simply re- 
sults in the more or less complete abstraction of all forms and 
limits, and so ends in an indefinite consciousness of the un- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 187 

formed and unlimited." Thus he brings us to " the ultimate 
difficulty — How can there possibly be constituted a conscious- 
ness of the unformed and unlimited, when, by its very nature, 
consciousness is possible only under forms and limits ? " This 
he accounts for by hypostatizing a " raw material " in con- 
sciousness which is, must be, present. He presents his con- 
clusion as follows : " By its very nature, therefore, this ulti- 
mate mental element is at once necessarily indefinite and 
necessarily indestructible. Our consciousness of the uncon- 
ditioned being literally the unconditioned consciousness, or 
raw material of thought, to which in thinking we give definite 
forms, it follows that an ever-present sense of real existence 
is the very basis of our intelligence." .... 

" To sum up this somewhat too elaborate argument : — We 
have seen how, in the very assertion that all our knowledge, 
properly so called, is Kelative, there is involved the assertion 
that there exists a Non-relative. We have seen how, in each 
step of the argument by which this doctrine is established, 
the same assumption is made. We have seen how, from the 
very necessity of thinking in relations, it follows that the 
Relative itself is inconceivable, except as related to a real 
Non-relative. We have seen that, unless a real Non-relative 
or Absolute be postulated, the Relative itself becomes ab- 
solute, and so brings the argument to a contradiction. And 
on contemplating the process of thought, we have equally 
seen how impossible it is to get rid of the consciousness of an 
actuality lying behind appearances ; and how, from this im- 
possibility, results our indestructible belief in that actuality." 

The approval which has been accorded to certain of the 
arguments adduced by Mr. Spencer in favor of his especial 
point, that the Absolute is a positive somewhat in conscious- 
ness, and to that point as established, must not be supposed 
to apply also to that hypothesis of "indefinite consciousness" 
by which he attempts to reconcile this position with his former 
teachings. On the contrary, it will be our purpose hereafter 
to show that this hypothesis is a complete fallacy. 



188 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

As against the positions taken by Sir William Hamilton 
and Mr. Mansel, Mr. Spencer's argument may unquestionably 
be deemed decisive. Admitting the logical accuracy of their 
reasoning, he very justly turns from the logical to the psy- 
chological aspect of the subject, takes exception to their 
premiss, shows conclusively that it is fallacious, and gives 
an approximate, though unfortunately a very partial and 
defective presentation of the truth. Indeed, the main issue 
which must now be made with him is whether the position 
he has here taken, and which he puts forth as that peculiar 
element in his philosophical system, that new truth, which 
shall harmonize Hamiltonian Limitism with the facts of 
human nature, is not, when carried to its logical results, in 
diametrical and irreconcilable antagonism to that whole sys- 
tem, and all that he has before written, and so does not 
annihilate them. It will be our present endeavor to show 
that such is the result. 

Perhaps we cannot better examine Mr. Spencer's theory 
than, first, to take up what we believe to be the element of 
truth in it, and carry out this to its logical results ; and after- 
wards to present what seem to be the elements of error, and 
show them to be such. 

1. " We are obliged to form a positive though vague con- 
sciousness of" " the Absolute." Without criticizing his use 
here of consciousness as if it were a faculty of knowledge, 
and remembering that we cannot have a consciousness of 
anything without having a knowledge commensurate with 
that consciousness, we will see that Mr. Spencer's assertion 
is tantamount to saying, We have a positive knowledge that 
the Absolute is. It does not seem that he himself can dis- 
allow this. Grant this, and our whole system follows, as does 
also the fallacy of his own. Our argument will proceed 
thus. Logic is the science of the pure laws of thought, and 
is mathematically accurate, and is absolute. Being such, it 
is law for all intellect, for God as well as man. But three 
positions can be taken. Either it is true for the Deity, or 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 189 

else it is false for him, or else it has no reference to him. In 
the last instance God is Chaos ; in the second he and man 
are in organic contradiction, and he created man so ; the first 
is the one now advocated. The second and third hypotheses 
refute themselves in the statement of them. Nothing remains 
but the position taken that the laws of Logic lie equally on 
God and man. One of those laws is, that, if any assertion is 
true, all that is logically involved in it is true ; in other words, 
all truth is in absolute and perfect harmony. This is funda- 
mental to the possibility of Logic. Now apply this law to 
the psychological premiss of Mr. Spencer, that we have a 
positive knowledge that the Absolute is. A better form of 
expression would be, The absolute Being is. It follows then 
that he is in a mode, has a formal being. But three hy- 
potheses are possible. He is in no mode ; he is in one mode ; 
he is in all modes. If be is in no mode, there is no form, no 
order, no law for his being; which is to say, he is Chaos. 
Chaos is not God, for Chaos cannot organize an orderly being, 
and men are orderly beings, and were created. If he is in 
all modes, he is in a state of utter contradiction. God " is all 
in every part." He is then all infinite, and all finite. Infinity 
and finiteness are contradictory and mutually exclusive qual- 
ities. God is wholly possessed of contradictory and mutually 
exclusive qualities, which is more than unthinkable — it is 
absurd. He is, must be, then, in one mode. Let us pause 
here for a moment and observe that we have clearly estab- 
lished, from Mr. Spencer's own premiss, the fact that God is 
limited. He must be in one mode to the exclusion of all 
other modes. He is limited then by the necessity to be what 
he is ; and if he could become what he is not, he would not 
have been absolute. Since he is absolute, he is, to the ex- 
clusion of the possibility of any other independent Being. 
Other beings are, and must therefore be, dependent on and 
subordinate to him. Since he is superior to all other beings, 
he must be in the highest possible mode of being. Person- 
ality is the highest possible mode of being. This will appear 



190 KNOW THE TBTJTH. 

from the following considerations. A person, possesses the 
reason and law of his action, and the capacity to act, within 
himself, and is thus a final cause. No higher form of being 
than this can be needed, and so by the law of parsimony 
a hypothesis of any other must be excluded. God is then a 
person. 

We have now brought the argument to that point where 
its connection with the system advocated in this treatise is 
manifest. If the links are well wrought, and the chain com 
plete, not only is this system firmly grounded upon Mr. 
Spencer's premiss, but, as was intimated on an early page, 
he has in this his special point given partial utterance to 
what, once established, involves the fallacy not only of all 
he has written before, but as well of the whole Limitist 
Philosophy. It remains now to remark upon the errors in 
his form of expressing the truth. 

2. Mr. Spencer's error is twofold. He treats of conscious- 
ness as a faculty of knowledge. He speaks of a " vague," 
an " indefinite consciousness." Let us examine these in their 
order. 

a. He treats of consciousness as a faculty of knowl- 
edge. In this he uses the term in the inexact, careless, 
popular manner, rather than with due precision. As has 
been observed on a former page, consciousness is the light in 
which the person sees his faculties act. Thus some feeling 
is affected. This feeling is cognized by the intellectual faculty, 
and of this the person is conscious. Hence it is an elliptical 
expression to say " I am conscious of the feeling." The full 
form being " I am conscious that I know the feeling." Thus 
is it with all man's activities. Applying this to the case in 
hand, it appears, not that we are conscious of the Absolute, 
but that we are conscious that the proper intellectual faculty, 
the Pure Reason, presents what absoluteness is, and that the 
absolute Person is, and through this presentation — intuition 
— the spiritual person knows these facts. We repeat, then, 
our position : consciousness is the indivisible unity, the light 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 191 

in which the person sees all his faculties and capacities act ; 
and so is to be considered as different in kind from them all 
as the peculiar and unique endowment of a spiritual person. 

b, Mr. Spencer speaks of a " vague," an " indefinite con- 
sciousness." The expression u vague consciousness " being a 
popular and very common one, deserves a careful examination, 
and this we hope to give it, keeping in mind meantime the 
position already attained. 

The phrase is used in some such connection as this, " I 
have a vague or undefined consciousness of impending evil." 
Let us analyze this experience. In doing so it will be 
observed that the consciousness, or rather the seeing by the 
person in the light of consciousness, is positive, clear, and 
definite, and is the apprehension of a feeling. Again, the feel- 
ing is positive and distinct ; it is a feeling of dread, of threaten- 
ing danger. What, then, is vague — is undefined ? This. 
That cause which produces the feeling lies without the reach 
of the cognitive faculties, and of course cannot be known ; 
because what produces the feeling is unknown, the intellect- 
ual apprehension experiences a sense of vagueness ; and this 
it instinctively carries over and applies to the feeling. Yet 
really the sense of vagueness arises from an ignorance of the 
cause of the feeling. Strictly speaking, then, it is not con- 
sciousness that is vague ; and so Mr. Spencer's " indefinite 
consciousness, which cannot be formulated," has no foundation 
in fact. But this may be shown by another line of thought. 
Consciousness is commensurate with knowledge, I. e., man 
can have no knowledge except he is conscious of that knowl- 
edge ; neither can he have any consciousness except he knows 
that the consciousness is, and what the consciousness is, i. e., 
what he is conscious of. Now all knowledge is definite ; it 
is only ignorance that is indefinite. "When we say that our 
knowledge of an object is indefinite, we mean that we partly 
know its characteristics, and are partly ignorant of them. 
Thus then also the result above stated follows ; and what 
Mr. Spencer calls " indefinite consciousness " is a " definite 



192 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

consciousness " that we partly know, and are partly ignorant 
of the object under consideration. 

In the last paragraph but one, of the chapter now under 
consideration, Mr. Spencer makes a most extraordinary asser- 
tion respecting consciousness, which, when examined in the 
light of the positions we have advocated, affords another 
decisive evidence of the fallacy of his theory. We quote it 
again, that the reader may not miss of giving it full attention. 
" By its very nature, therefore, this ultimate mental element 
is at once necessarily indefinite and necessarily indestructible. 
Our consciousness of the unconditioned being literally the 
unconditioned consciousness , or raw material of thought, to 
which in thinking we give definite forms, it follows that an 
ever-present sense of real existence is the very basis of our 
intelligence." Upon reading this passage, the question spon- 
taneously arises, What does the writer mean ? and it is a 
question which is not so easily answered. More than one 
interpretation may be assigned, as will appear upon examina- 
tion. A problem is given. To find what the " raw material 
of thought " is. Since man has thoughts, there must be in 
him the " raw material of thought " — the crude thought- 
ore which he smelts down in the blast-furnace of the Under- 
standing, giving forth in its stead the refined metal — exact 
thought. We must then proceed to attain our answer by 
analyzing man's natural organization. 

Since man is a complex, constituted being, there is neces- 
sarily a logical order to the parts which are combined in the 
complexity. He may be considered as a substance in which 
a constitution inheres, i. e., which is organized according to 
a set of fixed laws, and that set of laws may be stated in their 
logical order. It is sufficient, however, for our purpose to 
consider him as an organized substance, the organization 
being such that he is a person — a selfhood, self-active and 
capable of self-examination. The raw material of all the 
activities of such a person is this organized substance. Take 
away the substance, and there remains only the set of laws 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 193 

as abstract ideas. Again, take away the set of laws, and the 
substance is simple, unorganized substance. In the com- 
bining of the two the person becomes. These, then, are all 
there is of the person, and therefore in these must the raw 
material be. From this position it follows directly that any 
capacity or faculty, or, in general, every activity of the person, 
is the substance acting in accordance with the law which 
determines that form of the activity. To explain the term, 
form of activity. There is a set of laws. Each law, by itself, 
is a simple law, and is incapable of organizing a substance 
into a being. But when these laws are considered, as they 
naturally stand in the Divine Reason, in relation to each 
other, it is seen that this, their standing together, constitutes 
ideals, or forms of being and activity. To illustrate from 
an earthly object. The law of gravitation alone could not 
organize a Universe ; neither could the law of cohesion, nor of 
centripetal, nor centrifugal force, nor any other one law. All 
these laws must be acting together, — or rather all these 
laws must stand together in perfect harmony, according to 
their own nature, thus constituting an ideal form, in accord- 
ance with which God may create this Universe. For an 
illustration of our topic in its highest form, the reader is 
referred to those pages of Dr. Hickok's " Rational Psychology," 
where he analyzes personality into its elements of Spontaneity, 
Autonomy, and Liberty. From that examination it is suffi- 
ciently evident that either of these alone cannot organize a 
person, but that all three must be present in order to con- 
stitute such a being. There are, then, various forms of ac- 
tivity in the person, as Reason, Sensibility, and Will, in each 
of which the organized substance acts in a mode or form, and 
this form is determined by the set of organizing laws. Con- 
sciousness also is such a form. The " raw material of 
thought," then, must be this substance considered under the 
peculiar form of activity which we call consciousness, but 
before the substance thus formulated has been awakened into 
activity by those circumstances which are naturally suited to 
13 



194 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

it, for bringing it into action. Now, by the very terms of 
the statement it is evident that the substance thus organized 
in this form, or, to use the common term, consciousness con- 
sidered apart from and prior to its activity, can never be 
known by experience, i. e., we can never be conscious of an 
unconscious state. " Unconditioned consciousness " is con- 
sciousness considered as quiescent because in it have been 
awakened no " definite forms " — no " thinking." " In the 
nature of things," then, it is impossible to be conscious of an 
" unconditioned consciousness." Yet Mr. Spencer says that 
" our consciousness of the unconditioned," which he has al- 
ready asserted and proved, is a " positive," and therefore an 
active state ; is identical with, is " literally the unconditioned 
consciousness," or consciousness in its quiescent state, con- 
sidered before it had been awakened into activity, which is 
far more absurd than what was just above shown to be a 
contradiction. 

To escape such a result, a less objectionable interpretation 
may be given to the dictum in hand. It may be said that 
it looks upon consciousness only as an activity, and in the 
logical order after its action has begun. We are, then, con- 
scious, and in this is positive action, but no definite object is 
present which gives a form in consciousness, and so conscious- 
ness returns upon itself. We are conscious that we are con- 
scious, which is an awkward way of saying that we are self- 
conscious, or, more concisely yet, that we are conscious ; for 
accurately this is all, and this is the same as to say that the 
subject and object are identical in this act. The conclusion 
from this hypothesis is one which we judge Mr. Spencer will 
be very loath to accept, and yet it seems logically to follow. 
Indeed, in a sentence we are about to quote, he seems to 
make a most marked distinction between self-consciousness 
and this " consciousness of the unconditioned," which he calls 
its " obverse." 

But whatever Mr. Spencer's notion of the " raw material 
of thought " is, what more especially claims our attention and 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 195 

is most strange, is his application of that notion. To present 
this more clearly, we will quote further from the passage 
already under examination. u As we can in successive mental 
acts get rid of all particular conditions, and replace them by 
others, but cannot- get rid of that undifferentiated substance 
of consciousness, which is conditioned anew in every thought, 
there ever remains with us a sense of that which exists per- 
sistently and independently of conditions. At the same time 
that by the laws of thought we are rigorously prevented from 
forming a conception of absolute existence, we are by the 
laws of thought equally prevented from ridding ourselves 
of the consciousness of absolute existence : this consciousness 
being, as we here see, the obverse of our self-consciousness." 
Now, by comparing this extract with the other, which it im- 
mediately follows, it seems plain that Mr. Spencer uses as 
synonymous the phrases " consciousness of the uncondi- 
tioned," " unconditioned consciousness," " raw material of 
thought," " undifferentiated substance of consciousness," and 
" consciousness of absolute existence." Let us note, now, 
certain conclusions, which seem to follow from this use of 
language. We are conscious " of absolute existence." No 
person can be conscious except he is conscious of some state 
or condition of his being. Absolute existence is, therefore, 
a state or condition of our being. Also this " consciousness 
of absolute existence " — as it seems our absolute existence 
— is the "raw material of thought." But, again, as was 
shown above, this " raw material," this " undifferentiated 
substance of consciousness," if it is anything, is consciousness 
considered as capacity, and in the logical order before it 
becomes, or is, active ; and it further appeared that of this 
quiescent state we could have no knowledge by experience. 
But since the above phrases are synonymous, it follows that 
" consciousness of absolute existence " is the " undifferentiated 
substance of consciousness," is a consciousness of which we 
can have no knowledge by experience, is a consciousness of 
which we can have no consciousness. Is this philosophy ? 



196 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

It would be but fair to suppose that there is some fact 
which Mr. Spencer has endeavored to express in the language 
w r e are criticizing. There is such a fact, a statement of which 
will complete this criticism. Unquestionably, in self-exami- 
nation, a man may abstract all " successive mental acts," may 
consider himself as he is, in the logical order before he has 
experiences. In this he will find u that an ever-present sense 
of real existence is the very basis of our intelligence " ; or, in 
other words, that it is an organic law of our being that there 
cannot be an experience without a being to entertain the 
experience ; and hence that it is impossible for a man to 
think or act, except on the assumption that he is. But all 
this has nothing to do with a " consciousness of the uncon- 
ditioned," or of " absolute existence " ; for our existence is 
not absolute, and it is our existence of which we are con- 
scious. The reality and abidingness of our existence is 
ground for our experience, nothing more. Even if it were 
possible for us to have a consciousness of our state before 
any experience, or to actually now abstract all experience, 
and be conscious of our consciousness unmodified by any 
object, i* e. to be conscious of unconsciousness, this would 
not be a " consciousness of absolute existence." We could 
find no more in it, and deduce no more from it, than that our 
existence was involved in our experience. Such a conscious- 
ness would indeed appear "unconditioned" by the coming 
into it of any activity, which would give a form in it ; but 
this would give us no notion of true unconditionedness — 
true " absolute existence." This consciousness, though un- 
disturbed by any experience, would yet be conditioned, would 
have been created, and be dependent upon God for con- 
tinuance in existence, and for a chance to come into circum- 
stances, where it could be modified by experiences, and so 
could grow. "While, then, Mr. Spencer's theory gives us the 
fact of the notion of the necessity of our existence to our 
experience, it in no way accounts for the fact of our con- 
sciousness of the unconditioned, be that what it may. 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 197 

But to return from this considerable digression to the result 
which was attained a few pages back, viz : that what Mr. 
Spencer calls " indefinite consciousness " is a " definite con- 
sciousness" that we partly know, and are partly ignorant 
of the object under consideration. Let this conclusion be 
applied to the topic which immediately concerns us, — the 
character of God. 

But three suppositions are possible. Either we know 
nothing of God, not even that he is ; or we have a partial 
knowledge of him, we know that he is, and all which we can 
logically deduce from this ; or we know him exhaustively. 
The latter, no one pretends, and therefore it needs no notice. 
The first, even if our own arguments are not deemed satisfac- 
tory, has been thoroughly refuted by Mr. Spencer, and so is 
to be set aside. Only the second remains. Respecting this, 
his position is that we know that God is and no more. Admit 
this for a moment. We are conscious then of a positive, cer- 
tain, inalienable knowledge that God is ; but that with refer- 
ence to any and all questions which may arise concerning 
him we are in total ignorance. Here, again, it is apparent 
that it is not our consciousness or knowledge that is vague ; 
it is our ignorance. 

We might suggest the question — of what use can it be to 
man to know that God is, and be utterly and necessarily, yea, 
organically ignorant of what he is ? Let the reader answer 
the question to his own mind. It is required to show how 
the theory advocated in this book will appear in the light of 
the second hypothesis above stated. 

Man knows that God is, and what God is so far as he can 
logically deduce it from this premiss ; but, in so far as God 
is such, that he cannot be thus known, except wherein he 
makes a direct revelation to us, he must be forever inscrutable. 
To illustrate. If the fact that God is, be admitted, it 
logically follows that he must be self-existent. Self-existence 
is a positive idea in the Reason, and so here is a second 
element of knowledge respecting the Deity. Thus we may 



198 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

go on through all that it is possible to deduce, and the system 
thus wrought will be The Science of Natural Theology, a 
science as pure and sure as pure equations. Its results will 
be what God must be. Looking into the Universe we will 
find what must be corresponding with what is, and our knowl- 
edge will be complete. Again, in many regards God may be 
utterly inscrutable to us, since he may possess characteristics 
which we cannot attain by logical deductions. For instance, 
let it be granted that the doctrine of the Trinity is true — that 
there are three persons in one Godhead. This would be a 
fact which man could never attain, could never make the 
faintest guess at. He might, unaided, attain to the belief that 
God would forgive ; he might, with the profound and sad- 
eyed man of Greece, become convinced that some god must 
come from heaven to lead men to the truth ; but the notion 
of the Trinity could never come to him, except God himself 
with carefulness revealed it. Respecting those matters of 
which we cannot know except by revelation, this only can 
be demanded ; and this by inherent endowment man has a 
right to demand ; viz : that what is revealed shall not con- 
tradict the law already " written in the heart." Yet, once 
more, there are certain characteristics of God that must for- 
ever be utterly inscrutable to every created being, and this, 
because such is their nature and relation to the Deity, that 
one cannot be endowed with a faculty capable of attaining 
the knowledge in question. Such for instance are the ques- 
tions, How is God self-existent, how could he be eternal, 
how exercise his power, and the like ? These are questions 
respecting which no possible reason can arise why we should 
know them, except the gratification of curiosity, which in 
reality is no reason at all, and therefore the inability in 
question is no detriment to man. 

By the discussion which may now be brought to a close, 
two positions seem to be established. 1. That we have, as 
Mr. Spencer affirms, a positive consciousness that the absolute 
Being is, and that this and all which we can logically deduce 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 199 

from this are objects of knowledge to us ; in other words, 
that the system advocated in this volume directly follows 
from that premiss. 2. That any doctrine of " indefinite 
consciousness " is erroneous, that the vagueness is not in 
our consciousness, but in our knowledge ; and further, that 
the hypothesis of a consciousness of the " raw material of 
thought" is absurd. 



"THE RECONCILIATION." 

It would naturally seem, that, after what is believed to be 
the thorough refutation of the limitist scheme, which has been 
given in the preceding comments on Mr. Spencer's three 
philosophical chapters, the one named in our heading would 
need scarce more than a notice. But so far is this from being 
the case, that some of the worst features in the results of his 
system stand out in clearest relief here. Before proceeding 
to consider these, let us note a most important admission. 
He speaks of his conclusion as bringing " the results of 
speculation into harmony with those of common sense," and 
then makes the, for him, extraordinary statement, " Common 
Sense asserts the existence of reality." In these two remarks 
it would appear to be implied that Common Sense is a final 
standard with which any position must be reconciled. The 
question instantly arises, What is Common Sense ? The 
writer has never seen a definition, and would submit for the 
reader's consideration the following. 

Common Sense is the practical Pure Reason ; it is that 
faculty by which the spiritual person sees in the light of con- 
sciousness the a priori law as inherent in the fact presented 
by the Sense. 

For the sake of completeness its complement may be 
defined thus : 

Judgment is the practical Understanding ; it is that faculty 



200 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

by which the spiritual person selects such means as he thinks 
so conformed to that law thus intuited, as to be best suited to 
accomplish the object in view. 

A man has good Common Sense, who quickly sees the 
informing law in the fact ; and good judgment, who skilfully 
selects and adapts his means to the circumstances of the case, 
and the end sought. Of course it will not be understood 
that it is herein implied that every person who exercises 
this faculty has a defined and systematic knowledge of it. 

The reader will readily see the results which directly follow 
from Mr. Spencer's premiss. It is true that " Common Sense 
asserts the existence of a reality," and this assertion is true ; 
but with equal truth does it assert the law of logic ; that, if 
a premiss is true, all that is logically involved in it is true. 
It appears, then, that Mr. Spencer has unwittingly acknowl- 
edged the fundamental principle of what may be called the 
Coleridgian system, the psychological fact of the Pure Reason, 
and thus again has furnished a basis for the demolition of his 
own. 

It was said above that some of the evil results of Mr. 
Spencer's system assumed in this chapter their worst phases. 
This remark is illustrated in the following extract : " We are 
obliged to regard every phenomenon as a manifestation of 
some Power by which we are acted upon ; phenomena being, 
so far as we can ascertain, unlimited in their diffusion, we are 
obliged to regard this Power as omnipresent ; and criticism 
teaches us that this Power is wholly incomprehensible. In this 
consciousness of an Incomprehensible Omnipresent Power 
we have just that consciousness on which Religion dwells. 
And so we arrive at the point where Religion and Science 
coalesce." The evils referred to may be developed as fol- 
lows : " We are obliged to regard every phenomenon as a 
manifestation of some Power by which we are acted upon." 
This may be expressed in another form thus : Every phe- 
nomenon is a manifestation of some Power by which we are 
acted upon. Some doubt may arise respecting the precise 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 201 

meaning of this sentence, unless the exact signification of the 
term phenomenon be ascertained. It might be confined to 
material appearances, appreciable by one of the five senses. 
But the context seems to leave no doubt but that Mr. Spencer 
uses it in the wider sense of every somewhat in the Universe, 
since he speaks of " phenomena " as " unlimited." Putting 
the definition for the term, the sentence stands : Every some- 
what in the Universe is " a manifestation of some Power 
by which we are acted upon." It follows, then, that there is 
no somewhat in the Universe, except we are acted upon by 
it. Our being arises to be accounted for. Either we began 
to be, and w r ere created, or the ground of our being is in 
ourselves, our being is pure independence, and nothing further 
is to be asked. This latter will be rejected. Then we were 
created. But w r e were not created by Mr. Spencer's " some 
Power," because it only acts upon us. In his creation, man 
was not acted upon, because there was no man to be acted 
upon ; but in that act a being was originated who might be 
acted upon. Then, however, we came into being, another 
than " some Power " was the cause of us. But the act of 
creating man was a somewhat. Every somewhat in the 
Universe is " a manifestation of some Power." This is not 
such a manifestation. Therefore the creation of man took 
place outside the Universe. Or does Mr. Spencer prefer to 
say that the creation of man is " a manifestation of some 
Power acting upon " him ! 

The position above taken seems the more favorable one 
for Mr. Spencer. If, to avoid the difficulties which spring 
from it, he limits the term phenomenon, as for instance to 
material appearances, then his assertion that phenomena are 
unlimited is a contradiction, and he has no ground on which 
to establish the omnipresence of his Power. 

But another line of criticism may be pursued. Strictly 
speaking, all events are phenomena. Let there be named an 
event which is universally known and acknowledged, and 
which, in the nature of the case, cannot be " a manifestation 



202 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

of some Power by which we are acted upon," and in that 
statement also will the errors of the passage under con- 
sideration be established. The experiencing by the human 
soul of a sense of guilt, of a consciousness of ill-desert, is 
such an event. No " Power " can make a sinless soul feel 
guilty ; no " Power " can relieve a sinful soul from feeling 
guilty. The feeling of guilt does not arise from the defiance 
of Power, it arises from the violation of Law. And not only 
may this experience be named, but every other experience 
of the moral nature of man. In this connection let it be 
observed that Mr. Spencer always elsewhere uses the term 
phenomenon to represent material phenomena in the material 
universe. Throughout all his pages the reader is challenged 
to find a single instance in which he attempts to account for 
any other phenomena than these and their concomitants, the 
affections of the intellect in the animal nature. Indeed, so 
thoroughly is his philosophy vitiated by this omission, that 
one could never learn from anything he has said in these 
pages, that man had a moral nature at all, that there were 
any phenomena of sin and repentance which needed to be 
accounted for. In this, Sir William Hamilton and Mr. Mansel 
are just as bad as he. Yet in this the Limitists have done 
well ; it is impossible, on the basis of their system, to render 
such an account. To test the matter, the following problem 
is presented. 

To account, on the basis of the Limitist Philosophy, for the 
fact that the nations of men have universally made public 
acknowledgment of their guilt, in having violated the law of 
a superior being ; and that they have offered propitiatory 
sacrifices therefor, except in the case of those persons and 
nations who have received the Bible, or have learned through 
the Koran one of its leading features, that there is but one 
God, and who in either case believe that the needful sacrifice 
has already been made. 

Another pernicious result of the system under examination 
is, that it affords no better ground for the doctrine of Deity's 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 203 

omnipresence than experience. Mr. Spencer's words are : 
" phenomena being, so far as we can ascertain, unlimited in 
their diffusion, we are obliged to regard this Power as omni- 
present." Now, if he, or one of his friends, should happen to 
get wings some day, and should just take a turn through space, 
and should happen also to find a limit to phenomena, and, 
skirting in astonishment along that boundary, should happen 
to light upon an open place and a bridge, which invited them 
to pass across to another sphere or system of phenomena, made 
by another " Power," — said bridge being constructed " 'alf 
and 'alf" by the two aforesaid Powers, — then there would 
be nothing to do but for the said explorer to fly back again 
to England, as fast as ever he could, and relate to all the 
other Limitists his new experience ; and they, having no 
ground on which to argue against or above experience, must 
needs receive the declaration of their colaborator, with its 
inevitable conclusion, that the Power by which we are here 
acted upon is limited, and so is not omnipresent. But when, 
instead of such a fallacious philosophy, men shall receive the 
doctrine, based not upon human experience, but upon God's 
inborn ideas that phenomena are limited and God is omni- 
present, and that upon these facts experience can afford no 
decision, we shall begin to eliminate the real difficulties of 
philosophy, and to approach the attainment of the unison 
between human philosophy and the Divine Philosophy. 

Attached to the above is the conclusion reached by Mr. 
Spencer in an earlier part of his work, that u criticism teaches 
us that this Power is wholly incomprehensible." We might, 
it is believed, ask with pertinence, What better, then, is man 
than the brute ? But the subject is recurred to at this time, 
only to quote against this position a sentence from a some- 
what older book than " First Principles," a book which, did 
it deserve no other regard than as a human production, would 
seem, from its perfect agreement with the facts of human 
nature, to be the true basis for all philosophy. The sentence 
is this : " Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of 



204 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

God ; and every one that loveth, is born of God, and 
knoweth God." 

But the gross materialism of Mr. Spencer's philosophy pre- 
sents its worst phase in his completed doctrine of God. Mark. 
A " phenomenon " is " a manifestation of some Power." " In 
this consciousness of an Incomprehensible Omnipresent Powder 
we have just that consciousness on which Eeligion dwells. 
And so we arrive at the point where Religion and Science 
coalesce. An " Incomprehensible Omnipresent Power " is 
all the Deity Mr. Spencer allows to mankind. This Power 
is omnipresent, so that we can never escape it ; and incom- 
prehensible, so that we can never know the law of its 
action, or even if it have a law. At any moment it may 
fall on us and crush us. At any moment this globe may 
become one vast Vesuvius, and all its cities Herculaneums 
and Pompeiis. Of such a Deity the children of men may 
either live in continual dread, or in continual disregard ; they 
may either spend their lives clad in sackcloth, or purple and 
fine linen ; bread and water may be their fare, or their table 
may be spread like that of Dives ; by merciless mortification 
of the flesh, by scourges and iron chains, they may seek to 
propitiate, if possible, this incomprehensible, omnipresent 
Power ; or, reckless of consequences, they may laugh and 
dance and be gay, saying, we know nothing of this Power, 
he may crush us any moment, let us take the good of life 
while we can. The symbols of such a Deity are the " rough 
and ragged rocks," the hills, the snow-crowned mountains 
Titan-piled ; the avalanche starting with ominous thunder, to 
rush with crash and roar and terrible destruction upon the 
hapless village beneath it ; the flood gathering its waters 
from vast ranges of hills into a single valley, spreading into 
great lakes, drowning cattle, carrying off houses and their 
agonized inhabitants, sweeping away dams, rending bridges 
from their foundations, in fine, ruthlessly destroying the little 
gatherings of man, and leaving the country, over which its 
devastating waters flowed, a mournful desolation ; and finally, 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 205 

perhaps the completest symbol of all may be found in that 
collection of the united streams and lakes of tens upon tens 
of thousands of miles of the earth's surface, into the aorta of 
the world, over the rough, rocky bed of which the crowded 
waters rush and roar, with rage and foam, until they come 
suddenly to the swift tremendous plunge of Niagara. 

It should be further noticed, that this philosophy is in direct 
antagonism with that of the Bible, — that, if Spencerianism 
is true, the Bible is a falsehood and a cheat. Instead of Mr. 
Spencer's " Power," the Bible presents us a doctrine of God 
as follows : " And God said unto Moses, I am that I am. 
And he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, 
I am hath sent .me unto you." — Exodus IV. 14. This 
declaration, the most highly metaphysical of any but one 
man ever heard, all the Limitists, even devout Mr. Mansel, 
either in distinct terms, or by implication, deny. That other 
declaration is this : " Beloved, let us love one another : for 
love is of God ; and every one that loveth is born of God, 
and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God : 
for God is lover — 1 John IV. 7, 8. Direct as is the an- 
tagonism between the two philosophies now presented, the 
later one appears in an especially bad light from the fact, 
that, being very recent and supported by a mere handful of 
men, its advocates have utterly neglected to take any notice 
of the other and elder one, although the adherents of this 
may be numbered by millions, and among them have been and 
are many of the ablest of earth's thinkers. True, the great 
majority of Bible readers do not study it as a philosophical 
treatise, but rather as a book of religious and spiritual in- 
struction ; yet, since it is the most profoundly philosophical 
book which has ever been in the hands of man, and pro- 
fessedly teaches us not only the philosophy of man, but also 
the philosophy of God, it certainly would seem that the ad- 
vocates of the new and innovating system should have taken 
up that one which it sought to supplant, and have made an 
attempt, commensurate with the magnitude of the work be- 



206 KNOW THE TftUTH. 

fore them, to show its position to be fallacious and unworthy 
of regard. Instead of this they have nowhere recognized the 
existence even of this philosophy except in the single instance 
of a quotation by Mr. Mansel, in which he seems tacitly to ac- 
knowledge the antagonism we have noted. In Mr. Spencer's 
volume this neglect is especially noteworthy. Judging from 
internal evidence, one would much sooner conclude that it 
was written by a Hindu pundit, in a temple of Buddha, than 
by an Englishman, in a land of Bibles and Christian churches. 
Now, although the Bible may stand in his estimation no 
higher than the Bahgavat-Gita, yet the mere fact that it is, 
and that it presents a most profound philosophy, which is so 
largely received in his own and neighboring nations, made it 
imperative upon him not only to take some notice of it, but 
to meet and answer it, as we have indicated above. 

Another fault in Mr. Spencer's philosophy, one which he 
will be less willing to admit, perhaps, than the above, and, 
at the same time, one which will be more likely forcibly to 
move a certain class of mind, is, that it is in direct antagonism 
to human nature. Not only is the Bible a falsehood and a 
cheat, if Mr. Spencer's philosophical system is true, but human 
nature is equally a falsehood and a cheat. To specify. 
Human nature universally considers God, or its gods, as 
persons ; or, in other words, all human beings, or at least 
with very rare exceptions, spontaneously ascribe personality 
to Deity. This position is in no wise negatived by the fact of 
the Buddhist priesthood of India, or of a class of philosophical 
atheists in any other country. Man is endowed with the 
power of self-education ; and if an individual sees, in the 
religion in which he is brought up, some inconsistency, which 
he, thinking it, as it may be, integral, for philosophical reasons 
rejects, and all religion with it, he may educate himself into 
speculative atheism. But no child is an atheist. Not even 
Shelley became such, until he had dashed against some of the 
distorted and monstrous human theologies of his day. But 
counting all the Buddhists, and all the German atheists, and 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 207 

all the English atheists, and all the American atheists, and 
all other atheists wherever they may be found, they will not 
number one tenth of the human race. On what ground can 
the unanimity of the other nine tenths be accounted for ? 
There appears none possible, but that the notion that God is 
a person, is organic in human nature. Another equally 
universal and spontaneous utterance of mankind is, that there 
is a likeness, in some way, between God and man. There 
are the grossest, and in many instances most degrading modes 
of representing this ; but under them all, and through them 
all, the indelible notion appears. The unanimity and per- 
tinacity of this notion, appearing in every part of the globe, 
and under every variety of circumstance, and reappearing 
after every revolution, which, tearing down old customs and 
worships, established new ones, can without doubt only be 
accounted for on the precise ground of the other, — that the 
notion is organic in man. A third utterance of the human 
race, standing in the same category with these two, is, that 
the Deity can be propitiated by sacrifice. This also has had 
revolting, yea most hideous and unrighteous forms of ex- 
pression, even to human sacrifices. But the notion has re- 
mained indestructible through all ages, and must therefore 
be accounted for, as have been the others. Over against the 
I am, which human nature presents and the Bible supports ; 
over against Him in whose image man and the Bible say 
man was created ; and over against Him who, those two 
still agreeing witnesses also affirm, is moved by his great 
heart of Love to have mercy on those creatures who come 
to him with repentance, Mr. Spencer gives us, as the result 
of Science, an incomprehensible omnipresent Power ; only a 
Pow r er, nothing more ; and that " utterly inscrutable." For 
our part, whatever others may do, we will believe in human 
nature and the Bible. On the truthfulness of these two 
witnesses, as on the Central Rock in the Universe, w r e plant 
ourselves. Here do we find our Gibraltar. 

Mr. Spencer further says that on the consciousness of this 



208 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

Power " Religion dwells." Now, so far is this assertion from 
according with the fact, that on his hypothesis it is impossible 
to account for the presence of religion as a constitutive ele- 
ment of the human race. Religion was primarily worship, 
the reverential acknowledgment, by the sinless creature, of 
the authority of the Creator, combined with the adoration of 
His absolute Holiness ; but since sin has marred the race, it 
has been coupled with the offering in some forms of a pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice. But if the Deity is only Power ; or 
equally, if this is all the notion we can form of him, we are 
utterly at a loss to find aught in him to worship, much less 
can we account for the fact of the religious nature in us, and 
most of all are we confounded by the persistent assertion, by 
this religious nature, of the personality and mercy of God, 
for Power can be neither personal nor merciful. 

Mr. Spencer proceeds to strengthen as well as he can his 
position by stating that " from age to age Science has con- 
tinually defeated it (Religion) wherever they have come into 
collision, and has obliged it to relinquish one or more of its 
positions." In this assertion, also, he manifests either a want 
of acquaintance with the facts or a failure to comprehend 
their significance. Religion may properly be divided into 
two classes. 

1. Those religions which have appeared to grow up spon- 
taneously among men, having all the errors and deformities 
which a fleshly imagination would produce. 

2. The religion of Jesus Christ. 

1. From the three great ideas mentioned above, no Science 
has ever driven even the religions of this class. It has, 
indeed, corrected many forms of expression, and has some- 
times driven individuals, who failed to distinguish between 
the form, and the idea which the form overlies, into a 
rejection of the truth itself. 

2. Respecting the religion of Jesus Christ, Mr. Spencer's 
remark has no shadow of foundation. Since the beginning 
of its promulgation by Jehovah, and especially since the com- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 209 

pletion of that promulgation by our Saviour and his apostles, 
not one whit of its practical law or its philosophy has been 
abated ; nay, more, to-day, in these American States, there 
may be found a more widespread, thoroughly believed, firmly 
held, and intelligent conviction of God's personality, and 
personal supervision of the affairs of men, of his Fatherhood, 
and of that fatherhood exercised in bringing " order out of 
confusion," in so conducting the most terrible of conflicts, that 
it shall manifestly redound, not only to the glory of himself, 
but to the very best good of man, so manifestly to so great a 
good, that all the loss of life, and all the suffering, is felt to 
be not worthy to be compared to the good achieved, and that 
too most strongly by the sufferers, than was ever before 
manifested by any nation under heaven. The truth is, that, 
in spite of all its efforts to the contrary, criticism has ever 
been utterly impotent to eliminate from human thinking the 
elements we have presented. Its utmost triumph has been 
to force a change in the form of expression ; and in the Bible 
it meets with forms of expression which it ever has been, is 
now, and ever shall be, as helpless to change as a paralytic 
would be to overturn the Himalaya. 

The discussion of the topic immediately - in hand may 
perhaps be now properly closed with the simple allusion to 
a single fact. Just as far as a race of human beings descends 
in the gradations of degradation, just so far does it come to 
look upon Deity simply as power. African Fetishism is the 
doctrine that Deity is an incomprehensible power, rendered 
into the form of a popular religion ; only the religion stands 
one step higher than the philosophy, in that it assumes a sort 
of personality for the Power. 

On page 102 the following extract will be found: "And 
now observe that all along, the agent which has effected the 
purification has been Science. We habitually overlook the 
fact that this has been one of its functions. Eeligion ignores 
its immense debt to Science ; and Science is scarcely at all 
conscious how much Eeligion owes it. Yet it is demonstrable 
14 



210 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

that every step by which Religion has progressed from its 
first low conception to the comparatively high one it has now 
reached, Science has helped it, or rather forced it to take ; 
and that even now, Science is urging further steps in the 
same direction." In this passage half truths are so sweep- 
ingly asserted as universal that it becomes simply untrue. 
The evil may be stated under two heads. 

1. It is too philosophical. Mr. Spencer undertakes to be 
altogether too profound. Since he has observed that certain 
changes for the better have been made in some human 
religions, by the study of the natural sciences, he jumps to 
the conclusion that religion has been under a state of steady 
growth ; and of course readily assumes — for there is not a 
shadow of other basis for his assertion — that the " first " 
" conception " of religion was very " low." This assumption 
we utterly deny, and demand of Mr. Spencer his proof. For 
ourselves we are willing to come down from the impregnable 
fortresses of the Bible upon the common ground of the 
Grecian Mythology, and on this do battle against him. In 
this we are taught that the Golden Age came j#rs£, in which 
was a life of spotless purity ; after which were the silver and 
brazen ages, and the Iron Age in which was crime, and the 
" low conception " of religion came last. How marked is the 
general agreement of this with the Bible account ! 

2. But more and worse may be charged on this passage 
than that it is too philosophical. Mr. Spencer constructs his 
philosophy first and cuts his facts to match it. This is a 
common mistake among men, and which they are unconscious 
of. Now the fact is, Science was not " the agent which effected 
the purification." Religion owes a very small debt to Science. 
Science can never be more than a supplement, "a hand- 
maid" to Religion. Religion's first position was not a low 
one, but nearly the highest. Afterwards it sunk very low ; 
but men sunk it there. Science never " helped it " or " forced 
it" one atom upwards. Science alone only degrades Religion 
and gives new wings and hands to crime. This will be 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 211 

especially manifest to those who remember what Mr. Spencer's 
doctrine of Science is. He says: "That even the highest 
achievements of Science are resolvable into mental relations 
of coexistence and sequence, so coordinated as exactly to 
tally with certain relations of coexistence and sequence that 
occur externally." Of course the highest object of Science 
will be " truth " ; and this, our teacher tells us, " is simply the 
accurate correspondence of subjective to objective relations." 
To interpret. A science of medicine, a science of ablutions, a 
science of clothing, a science of ventilation, a science of tem- 
perature, and to some largely, to many chiefly, a science of 
cookery do, combined, constitute Science, and the preservation 
of the body is its highest attainment. Is this Science " the 
agent which has effected the purification of Religion ? " What 
then is the truth ? 

" Lo this have I found, that God hath made man upright ; 
but they have sought out many inventions." — JEccl. VII. 29. 
The first religion was a communion with God. The Creator 
taught man, as a father would his children. But when man 
sinned, he began to seek out many inventions, and sank to 
that awful state of degradation hinted at in the fragmentary 
sketches of the popular manners and customs of the times of 
Abraham, — Gen. XII. XXV. ; w r hich Paul epitomizes with 
such fiery vigor in the first chapter of Romans, and which 
may be found fully paralleled in our own day. At the proper 
time, God took mankind in hand, and began to develop his 
great plan for giving purity to religion. So he raised up 
Moses, and gave to Israel the Levitical law. Or if Mr. 
Spencer shall deny the biblical account of the origin of the 
five books of Moses, he at least cannot deny that they have 
a being ; and, placing them on the same ground of examina- 
tion and criticism as Herodotus, that they were written more 
than a thousand years before the Christian era. Now mark. 
Whoever w T rote them, they remained as they were first framed, 
and no one of the prophets, who came after, added one new 
idea. They only emphasized and amplified " The Law." 



212 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

So far then as this part of Religion was concerned, Science 
never helped a particle. Yea, more, the words to Moses in 
the wilderness were never paralleled in the utterances of man 
before the Christian era. 

" In the fulness of time God sent his own Son." However 
defective was the former dispensation, he, who appeared to 
most of the men of his day as only a carpenter's son, declared 
to mankind the final and perfect truth. As the system taught 
by Moses was not the result of any philosophical develop- 
ments, but was incomparably superior to the religion of the 
most civilized people of the world, at whose court Moses was 
brought up, and was manifestly constructed de novo, and from 
some kind of revelation, so this, which the carpenter's son 
taught, was incomparably superior to any utterance which 
the human soul had up to that time, or has since, made. 
It comes forth at once complete and pure. It utters the 
highest principles in the simplest language. Indeed, nothing 
new was left to say when John finished his writing ; and the 
canon might well be closed. And since that day, has Religion 
advanced ? Not a syllable. The purest water is drank at the 
old fountain. But it will be said that the cause of Religion 
among men has advanced. Yery true, but Science did not 
advance it. You can yet count the years on your fingers 
since men of Science generally ceased to be strenuously hostile 
to Religion. Religion, in every instance, has advanced just 
where it has gone back, and drank at the old fountains. Who, 
then, has purified Religion ? God is " the agent which has 
effected the purification." God is he to whom Religion owes 
" its immense debt," not Science. He it is who has brought 
her up to her present high position. 

When, now, we see how completely Mr. Spencer — to use 
a commonplace but very forcible phrase — has " ruled God 
out of the ring," how impertinent seems his rebuke, admin- 
istered a few pages further on, in the passage beginning, 
" Volumes might be written upon the impiety of the pious," 
to those who believe that God means what he says, and that 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 213 

men may know him. These men at least stand on a far 
higher plane than he who teaches that an " incomprehensible 
omnipresent Power " is all there is for us to worship, and his 
words will sound to them like the crackling of thorns under 
a pot. 

There does not appear in this chapter any further topic 
that has not already been touched upon. With these remarks, 
then, the examination of this chapter, and of Mr. Spencer's 
First Principles, may be closed. 



214 KNOW THE TRUTH. 



CONCLUSION. 

If it has ever been the reader's lot to examine Paley's 
" Evidences of Christianity/' or the " Sermons of President 
D wight on the Existence of God " ; and if he has risen from 
their perusal with a feeling of utter unsatisfaction, enduring 
the same craving for a sure truth harassing as before, he will 
have partly shared the experience which drove the author 
forward, until he arrived at the foundation principles of this 
treatise. Those works, and all of that class are, for the object 
they have in view, worthless ; not because the various state- 
ments they make are untrue, nor because elegant language and 
beauty of style are wanting ; but because they are radically 
defective in that, their method is irrelevant to the subject in 
hand ; because in all the arguments that have been or can be 
brought forward there is nothing decisive and final ; because 
the skeptic can thrust the sharp sword of his criticism through 
every one of them ; because, in fine, the very root of the mat- 
ter, their method itself is false, and men have attempted to 
establish by a series of arguments what must be ground for 
the possibility of an argument, and can only be established by 
the opposite, the a priori method. Though the Limitist Phi- 
losophy has no positive value, it has this negative one, that it 
has established, by the most thorough-going criticism, the 
worthlessness of the a posteriori processes of thought on the 
matter in hand. Yea, more, the existence of any spiritual 
person cannot be proved in that way. You can prove that 
the boy's body climbs the tree ; but never that he has a soul. 
This is always taken for granted. Lest the author should 
appear singular in this view, he would call the attention of 
the reader to a passage in Coleridge's writings in which he 
at once sets forth the beauty of the style and incompetency 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 215 

of the logic of Dr. Paley's book. " I have, I am aware, in 
this present work, furnished occasion for a charge of having 
expressed myself with slight and irreverence of celebrated 
names, especially of the late Dr. Paley. 0, if I were fond 
and ambitious of literary honor, of public applause, how well 
content should 1 be to excite but one third of the admiration 
which, in my inmost being, I feel for the head and heart of 
Paley ! And how gladly would I surrender all hope of con- 
temporary praise, could I even approach to the incomparable 
grace, propriety, and persuasive facility of his writings ! But 
on this very account, I feel myself bound in conscience to throw 
the whole force of my intellect in the way of this triumphal car, 
on which the tutelary genius of modern idolatry is borne, 
even at the risk of being crushed under the wheels." 

Instead of the method now condemned, there is one taught 
us in the Book, and the only one taught us there, which is 
open to every human being, for which every human being 
has the faculty, and respecting which all that is needed is, 
that the person exercise what he already has. The boy could 
not learn his arithmetic, except he set himself resolutely to 
his task ; and no man can learn of God, except he also fulfils 
the conditions, except he consecrate himself wholly to the 
acquisition of this knowledge, except his soul is poured out 
in love to God ; " for every one that loveth, is born of God, 
and knoweth God" We come then to the knowledge of God 
by a direct and immediate act of the soul. The Reason, the 
Sensibility, and the Will, give forth their combined and 
highest action in the attainment of this knowledge. As an 
intellectual achievement, this is the highest possible to the 
Reason. She attains then, to the Ultima Thule of all effort, 
and of this she is fully conscious. Nor is there awakened 
any feverish complaining that there are no more worlds to 
conquer. In the contemplation of the ineffable Goodness 
she finds her everlasting occupation, and her eternal rest. 
Plainly, then, both Reason and Revelation teach but a single, 
and that the a priori method, by which to establish for man 



216 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

the fact of the being of God. Let us buttress this conclusion 
with other lines of thought. 

Reader, now that it is suggested to you, does it not seem in 
the highest degree improbable, that the most important truths 
which can pertain to man, truths which do not concern 
primarily the affairs of this life, but of his most exalted life, 
the life of the spiritual person as the companion of its Creator, 
should be based upon an inferior, less satisfactory, and less 
adequate foundation of knowledge, than those of our child- 
hood's studies, of the arithmetic and the algebra ? The boy 
who cons the first pages of his arithmetical text-book, soon 
learns what he knows to be self-evident truths. He who 
should offer to prove the truth of the multiplication-table, 
would only expose himself to ridicule. When the boy has 
attained to youth, and advanced in his studies, the pages of 
the algebra and geometry are laid before him, and he finds 
new and higher orders of self-evident truths. Would any 
evidence, any argument, strengthen his conviction of the 
validity of the axioms ? Yea, rather, if one should begin to 
offer arguments, would he not instinctively and rightfully 
feel that the confession was thereby tacitly made, that self- 
evidence was not satisfactory ; and would he not, finding his 
spontaneous impulse, and his education, so contradictory, be 
liable to fall into complete skepticism ? If now there be this 
spontaneous, yea, abiding, yea, unalterable, yea, universal 
conviction respecting matters of subordinate importance, can 
it be possible, — I repeat the question, for it seems to carry 
with it irresistibly its own and the decisive answer, — can it be 
possible that the decisions of questions of the highest moment, 
that the knowledge of the principles of our moral being and 
of the moral government to which we are amenable, and 
most of all of the Governor who is at once Creator, Law- 
giver, and Judge, is not based on at least equally spontaneous, 
yea, abiding, yea, unalterable, yea, universal convictions ? 
And when the teacher seemingly, and may it not with truth 
be said actually, distrusting the reliability of such a conviction, 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 217 

goes about to bolster up his belief, and the belief of his pupil, 
in the existence of God, and thereto rakes together, with 
painstaking labor, many sticks and straws of evidence, instead 
of looking up to the truth which shines directly down upon 
him with steady ineffable effulgence, is it at all strange that 
the sharper-eyed pupil, keenly appreciating the contradiction 
between his spontaneous conviction and his teaching, should 
become uncertain which to follow, a doubter, and finally a 
confirmed skeptic ? If, then, it is incredible that the funda- 
mental principles of man's moral nature — that to which all 
the other elements of his being are subordinate, and for which 
they were created — are established on inferior grounds, and 
those less satisfactory than the grounds of other principles ; 
and if, on the other hand, the conviction is irresistible, that 
they are established on the highest grounds, and since the 
truths of mathematics are also based on the highest ground, 
self-evidence, and since there can be none higher than the 
highest, it follows that the moral principles of the Universe, 
so far as they can be known by man, have precisely the same 
foundation of truthfulness as the principles of mathematics — 
they are self-evident. 

But some good reader will check at the result now attained 
because it involves the position that the human Reason is the 
final standard of truth for man. Good reader, this position 
is involved, and is true ; and for the sake of Christ's religion 
it must be taken. The only possible ground for a thoroughly 
satisfactory and thoroughly unanswerable Christian Philos- 
ophy, is the principle that The human Reason is the final 
standard of truth for man. 

It has been customary for the devout Bible-reader to esteem 
that book as his final standard ; and to such an extent in * 
many instances has his reverential regard for it been carried, 
that the expression will hardly be too strong for truth, that 
it has become an object of worship ; and upon the mind of 
such a one the above assertion will produce a shock. While 
the author would treat with respect every religious feeling, 



218 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

he would still remind such a person that the Bible is the 
moral school-book of the spiritual person in man, which God 
himself prepared for man's use, and must in every case be 
inferior and subordinate to the being whom it was meant to 
educate ; and furthermore, that, by the very fact of making 
man, God established in him the standard, and the right to 
require that this fact be recognized. Mark, God made the 
standard and thus established the right. This principle may 
be supported by the following considerations : 

1. The church universally has acted upon it ; and none 
have employed it more vigorously than those who have in 
terms most bitterly opposed it. One of the class just referred 
to affirms that the Bible is the standard of truth. " Admit," 
says a friend standing by, " that it would be if it were what 
it purports to be ; but what evidence is there that this is the 
case." Thereupon the champion presents evidence from the 
fathers, and evidence from the book itself; and finally closes 
by saying, that such an array of evidence is ample to satisfy 
any reasonable man of its truth and validity. His argument 
is undoubtedly satisfactory ; but if he has not appealed to 
a reasonable man, i. e. to the Reason, i. e., if he has not 
acknowledged a standard for the standard, and thus has not 
tacitly, unconsciously and yet decisively employed the Reason 
as the highest standard of truth, then his conduct has for us 
no adequate expression. 

2. Mcodemus and Christ, in express terms, recognized the 
validity of this standard. Said the ruler to Christ, " We 
know that thou art a teacher come from God : for no man 
can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with 
him." — John III. 2. In these words, he both recognized 
the validity of the standard, and the fact that its requirements 
had been met. But decisively emphatic are the words of 
our Saviour : " If I had not done among them the works 
which none other man did, they had not had sin : but now 
have they both seen and hated both me and my Father." — 
John XV. 24. As if he had said, " While I appeared among 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 219 

them simply as a man, I had no right to claim from them a 
belief in my mission ; but when I had given them adequate 
and ample evidence of my heavenly character, when, in a 
word, I had by my works satisfied all the rational demands 
for evidence which they could make, then no excuse remained 
for their rejection of me." 

The doctrine of this treatise, that man may know the truth, 
and know God, is one which will never be too largely reflected 
upon by the human mind, or too fully illustrated in human 
thought. In no better strain can we bring our work to a close 
than by offering some reflections on those words of Jesus 
Christ which have formed the title of our book. 

" Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, 
i If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed ; 
and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you 
free.' " — John VIII. 31, 82. Throughout all the acts of 
Christ, as recorded in John, and especially during the last 
days of his life, there may be traced the marks of a super- 
human effort to express to the Jews, in the most skilful man- 
ner, the nature and purport of his mission. He appeared to 
them a man ; and yet it would seem as if the Godhead in 
him struggled with language to overcome its infirmities, and 
express with perfectest skill his extraordinary character and 
work. But " he came unto his own, and his own received 
him not." Being then such, even the Divine Man, Jesus 
Christ possessed in his own right an absolute and exhaustive 
metaphysic. We study out some laws in some of their appli- 
cations ; he knew all laws in all their applications. In these 
his last days he was engaged in making the most profound 
and highly philosophical revelations to his followers that one 
being ever made to another. Or does the reader prefer to call 
them religious ? Very well : for here Religion and Philosophy 
are identical. Being engaged in such a labor, it is certain 
that no merely human teacher ever used words with the care- 
ful balancing, the skilful selection, the certain exactitude, 
that Jesus did. Hence in the most emphatic sense may it be 



220 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

said, that, whether he used figurative or literal language, he 
meant just what he said. The terms used in the text quoted 
are literal terms, and undoubtedly the passage is to be taken 
in its most literal signification. In these words then, in this 
passage of the highest philosophical import, is to be found the 
basis of the whole a 'priori philosophy. They were spoken 
of the most important truths, those which pertain to the soul's 
everlasting welfare ; but as the greater includes the less, so 
do they include all lesser science. In positive and unmis- 
takable terms has Christ declared the fact of knowledge. 
God knows all truth. In so far as we also know the truth, 
in so far are we like him. And mark, this is knowledge, a 
purely intellectual act. Love is indeed a condition of the act, 
but it is not the very act itself. 

On this subject it is believed that the Christian church has 
failed to assert the most accurate doctrine. Too generally 
has this knowledge been termed a spiritual knowledge, mean- 
ing thereby, a sort of an impression of happiness made upon 
the spiritual sensibility ; and this state of bliss has been 
represented as in the highest degree desirable. Beyond all 
question it is true, that, when the spiritual person, with the 
eye of Reason, sees, and thus knows the truth, seeing it and 
knowing it because his whole being, will, and intellect is con- 
secrated to, wrapt in the effort, and he is searching for it as 
for hid treasures, there will roll over his soul some ripples of 
that ineffable Delight which is a boundless ocean in Deity. 
But this state of the Sensibility follows after, and is dependent 
upon, the act of love, and the act of knowledge. There should 
be, there was made in Christ's mind, a distinction in the 
various psychical modifications of him who had sold all that 
he had to buy the one pearl. The words of Christ are to be 
taken, then, as the words of the perfect philosopher, and the 
perfect religionist. Bearing, as he did, the destiny of a world 
on his heart, and burdened beyond all utterance by the mighty 
load, his soul was full of the theme for which he was suffering, 
he could speak to man only of his highest needs and his 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 221 

highest capabilities. The truth which man may know, then, 
is not only eternal, — all truth is eternal, — but it is that 
eternal truth most important to him, the a priori laws of the 
spiritual person and of all his relations. The what he is, the 
why he is, and the what he ought to become, are the objects 
of his examination. When, then, a spiritual person has per- 
formed his highest act, the act of unconditional and entire 
consecration to the search after the truth, i. e. to God ; and 
when, having done this, he ever after puts away all lusts of 
the flesh, he shall in this condition become absorbed, wrapt 
away in the contemplation of the truth ; then his spiritual eye 
will be open, and will dart with its far-glancing, searching 
gaze throughout the mysteries of the Universe, and he will 
know the truth. Before, when he was absorbed in the pursuit 
of the things of Sense, he could see almost no a priori prin- 
ciples at all, and what he did see, only in their practical 
bearing upon those material and transitory things which 
perish with their using ; but now balancing himself on tire- 
less pinion in the upper ether, anon he stoops to notice the 
largest and highest and most important of those objects which 
formerly with so much painful and painstaking labor he 
climbed the rugged heights of sense to examine, and having 
touched upon them cursorily, to supply the need of the hour, 
he again spreads his powerful God-given wings of faith and 
love, and soars upward, upward, upward, towards the eternal 
Sun, the infinite Person, the final Truth, God. Then does 
he come to comprehend, " to know, with all saints, what is 
the height and depth and length and breadth of the love of 
God." Then do the pure a priori law r s, especially those of 
the relations of spiritual persons, i. e. of the moral govern- 
ment of God, come full into the field of his vision. Then in 
the clear blaze, in the noonday effulgence of the ineffable, 
eternal Sun, does he see the Law which binds God as it 
binds man, — that Law so terrible in its demands upon him 
who had violated it, that the infinite Person himself could 
find no other way of escape for sinning man but in sending 



222 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

"his only-begotten Son into the world. " And he who is 
lifted up to this knowledge needs no other revelation. All 
other knowledge is a child's lesson-book to him. All lower 
study is tasteless ; all lower life is neglected, forgotten. He 
studies forever the pure equations of truth ; he lives in the 
bosom of God. Such an one may all his life-long have been 
utterly ignorant of books. A poor negro on some rice plan- 
tation, he may have learned of God only by the hearing of 
the ear, but by one act, in a moment, in the twinkling of an 
eye, he has passed all the gradations of earthly knowledge, 
and taken his seat on the topmost form in heaven. He 
received little instruction from men ; but forevermore God 
is his teacher. 

This of which we have been speaking is, be it remembered, 
no rhapsody of the imagination. It is a simple literal fact 
respecting man's intellect. It is the same in kind, though 
of far nobler import, as if upon this act of consecration 
there should be revealed to every consecrated one, in a sudden 
overwhelming burst of light, the whole a priori system of the 
physical Universe. This is not so revealed because it is not 
essential, and so would only gratify curiosity. The other and 
the higher is revealed, because it is essential to man's spiritual 
life. 

In the culminating act, then, of a spiritual person, in the 
unreserved, the absolute consecration of the whole being to 
the search after truth, do we find that common goal to which 
an a priori philosophy inevitably leads us, and which the 
purest, Christ's, religion teaches us. Thus does it appear that 
in their highest idea Philosophy and Religion are identical. 
The Rock upon which both alike are grounded is eternal. 
The principles of both have the highest possible evidence, 
for they are self-evident ; and, having them given by the 
intuition of the Reason, a man can cipher out the whole 
natural scheme of the Universe as he would cipher out a 
problem in equations. He has not done it because he is 
wicked ; and God has given him the Bible, as the mathe- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 223 

matical astronomy of the moral heavens, as a school-book to 
lead him back to the goal of his lost purity. 

How beautiful, then, art thou, O Religion, supernal daughter 
of the Deity ! how noble in thy magnificent preeminence i 
how dazzling in thy transcendent loveliness ! Thou sittest 
afar on a throne of pearl ; thy diadem the Morning Stars, thy 
robe the glory of God. Founded is thy throne on Eternity ; 
and from eternity to eternity all thy laws are enduring truth. 
Sitting thus, O Queen, more firmly throned than the snow- 
capped mountains, calmer than the ocean's depths, in the 
surety of thy self-conscious integrity and truth, thou mayest, 
with mien of noblest dignity, in unwavering confidence, throw 
down the gauntlet of thy challenge to the assembled doubters 
of the Universe. 

It may be that to some minds, unaccustomed to venturing 
out fearlessly on the ocean of thought, with an unwavering 
trust in the pole-star truth in the human soul, certain of the 
positions attained and maintained in this volume will seem to 
involve the destruction of all essential distinction between the 
Creator and the created. If the universe is a definite and 
limited object, some created being may, at some period, come 
to know every atom of it. Moreover, if there is a definite 
number of the qualities and attributes — the endowments of 
Deity, some one may learn the number, and what they are, 
and come at length to have a knowledge equal to God's knowl- 
edge. Even if this possibility should be admitted, — which 
it is not, for a reason to appear further on, — yet it would in 
no way involve that the creature had, in any the least degree, 
reduced the difference in hind which subsists between him 
and the Creator. A consideration of the following distinctive 
marks will, it would seem, be decisive upon this point. 

God is self-existent. His creatures are dependent upon 
him. Self-existence is an essential, inherent, untransferable 
attribute of Deity ; and so is not a possible attainment for 
any creature. Every creature is necessarily dependent upon 
the Creator every moment, for his continuance in being. 



224 KNOW THE TRUTH. 

Let him attain ever so high a state of knowledge ; let him, if 
the supposition were rational, acquire a knowledge equal to 
that of Deity ; let him be endowed with all the power he could 
use, and he would not have made, nor could he make an effort 
even, in the direction of removing his dependence upon his 
Creator. In the very height of his glory, in the acme of his 
attainment, it would need only that God rest an instant, cease 
to sustain him, and he would not be, he would have gone out, 
as the light goes out on a burner when one turns the faucet. 

Again, the mode by which their knowledge is attained is 
different in kind; and the creature never can acquire the 
Creator's mode. The Deity possesses his knowledge as a 
necessary endowment, given to him at once, by a spontaneous 
intuition. Hence he could never learn, for there was no 
knowledge which he did not already possess. Thus he is out 
of all relation to Time. The creature, on the other hand, 
can never acquire any knowledge except through processes ; 
and, what is more, can never review the knowledge already 
acquired, except by a process which occupies a time. This 
relation of the creature to Time is organic ; and this distinc- 
tion between the creature and Creator is thus also irre- 
movable. 

Another organic distinction is that observed in the mode 
of seeing ideals. The Divine Eeason not only gives ideas, 
a 'priori laws, but it gives all possible images, which those 
laws, standing in their natural relations to each other, can 
become. Thus all ideals are realized to him, whether the 
creative energy goes forth, and power is organized in accord- 
ance therewith, or not. Here again the creature is of the 
opposite kind. The creature can never have an idea until he 
has been educated by contact with a material universe ; and 
then can never construct an ideal, except he have first seen 
the elements of that ideal realized in material forms. To 
illustrate : The infant has no ideas ; and there is no radical 
difference between the beginning of a human being and any 
other created spiritual person. He has a rudimentary Rea- 



KNOW THE TRUTH. 225 

son, but it must grow before it can make its presentations, 
and the means of its education must be a material system. 
Let a spiritual person be created, and set in the Universe, 
utterly isolated, with no medium of communication, and it 
would stay forever just what it was at the beginning, a dry 
seed. The necessity of alliance with a material Universe is 
equally apparent in the mature spiritual person. Such a 
one cannot construct a single ideal, except he have seen all 
the elements already in material forms. He who will attempt 
to construct an ideal of any thing, which never has been, as a 
griffin, and not put into it any form of animals which have 
been on earth, will immediately appreciate the unquestion- 
ableness of this position. Therefore it is that no one can, 
" by searching, find out God." The creature can only learn 
what the Creator declares to him. 

Still another element of distinction, equally marked and 
decisive as those just named, may be mentioned. The Deity 
possesses as inherent and immanent endowment Power, or 
the ability of himself to realize his ideals in objects. Thus 
is he the Creator. If this were not so, there could have 
been no Universe, for there was no substance and no one to 
furnish a substance but he. The creature, on the other hand, 
cannot receive as a gift, neither attain by culture the power 
to create. Hence he can only realize his ideals in materials 
furnished to his hand. Pigments and brushes and chisels and 
marble must be before painters and sculptors can become. 

Each and every one of the distinctions above made is 
organic. They cannot be eliminated. In fact their removal 
is not a possible object of effort. The creature may wish 
them removed ; but no line of thought can be studied out by 
which a movement can be made towards the attainment of 
that wish. It would seem, then, that, such being the facts, the 
fullest scope might fearlessly be allowed to the legitimate use 
of every power of the creature. Such, it is believed, is God's 
design. 

THE END. 

15 










Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Oct. 2004 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 









Kr' 




^^H 







